Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pruning (tree management styel)

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I've added topiary and espalier to the proposal. But I don't think the list
should be exhaustive in the proposal, so I've added a "user defined" value
too.

Thanks to m!dgard, the suggested values are now in a pretty table.

I'm not convinced of the pruning cycle subtag. Is it what should happen?
What actually happens? And if so, how are we to know?

Now that we've included espalier, pruning=* also includes a style which is
shaped as much by "training" (forcing branches to grow in a particular
direction) as by "pruning" (cutting branches). I don't think that is an
important distinction from a mapping point of view, so I think we can
ignore this.

2018-06-11 1:33 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> Photos are available for OSM use  .. look on the branches (pun) of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruning  for photos.
>
> Comments;
>
> This would also apply to an area, landcover=trees/tree/tree_row and shrubs.
> Oh and orchards and vineyards - they are all regularly pruned .. might be
> a default value on these of yes.
>
> Another value for pruning is topiary.
>
> Another sub tag could be pruning:cycle=* for the expected cycle of pruning
> .. usually a year?
>
>
> On 10/06/18 21:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Can you add some images? Even if not present on Wikimedia Commons yet it
> should be possible
> to make some photos.
>
> 10. Jun 2018 12:46 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi,
>
> I created a proposal for mapping the style of how trees are pruned (or not
> pruned). I made it because I want to be able to map pollards ("knotted
> willows"), which are siginificant landscape elements in my area. But it's
> written in such a way that it can easily be extended towards other tree
> styles.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pruning
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

[osm.tagging]

No you don’t. 

 

transit:lanes describes how the lanes from the end of one way connect to the 
end of another way in the direction of traffic flow.

 

For each pair of from/to ways, there is going to be exactly one node where they 
connect. That is your via node.

 

From: Paul Johnson  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 08:46
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

 

You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relation. 

 

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 01:11 Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> > wrote:


11. Jun 2018 23:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org  :

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel mailto:bhou...@gmail.com> > wrote:

The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a relation 
that has similar semantics to turn restrictions.. from/via/to.  Keep it simple 
(no multi via ways please).  This is already an understood way of tagging 
things that connect 2 ways. 

 

Driveway in the middle of a lane transition with turn restrictions.  What now?

 

No problem? Why it would be an issue? 

___
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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

Would it be possible to get the osm-community in Belgium to agree on one
tagging principle for trees/wood/forest?
And get it done that way?

2018-06-13 7:47 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
> >
> > How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> > a country based on OSM-data ?
> >
> >
> > I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
> >
> > landuse=forest and natural=wood
> >
> > after excluding very small areas.
> >
> >
>
> won't work, see e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=
> 16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>
> >
> >  Is the data suited for that ?
> >
> >
> > Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many
> regions
> >
> > are unmapped or partially mapped.
> >
> >
> >
> > How can I find those places with OSM data ?
> >
> >
> > What you exactly want to find?
>
>
> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.
> Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
> forest in Belgium.
> It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
> somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> > natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
> >
> >
> > No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>
> If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
> with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.
>
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>
>
> I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
>
> landuse=forest and natural=wood
>
> after excluding very small areas.
>
>

won't work, see e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.

>
>  Is the data suited for that ?
>
>
> Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many 
> regions
>
> are unmapped or partially mapped.
>
>
>
> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>
>
> What you exactly want to find?


A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
private backyard.
Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
forest in Belgium.
It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)

>
>
>
> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
>
>
> No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods

If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 07:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On 13 June 2018 at 06:54, François Lacombe > wrote:


Hi Warin,

2018-06-12 11:52 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>:


What about calling them an 'exchange' ... though it could be
confused with money - foreign currency trading etc.
 So umm 'communication exchange' ?


Exchange is a good input, thank you

telecom=exchange can't really be confused with
amenity=bureau_de_change can you ?
This would be shorter to type than
telecom=telecommunication_exchange or even
telecom=telephone_exchange and less redundant with key name "telecom"
We can think about telecom=exchange_point to meet consistency with
telecom=connection_point

I would really enjoy a consensus on this


Yep, telecom=exchange works for me :-)


Works for me too... but don't be too hasty adopting one of 'my' ideas. 
Lets let others (and me) contemplate it for a while?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 12/06/18 22:59, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:



I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand
you. To me, a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting
from 3 to maybe 20 or maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually
something lower than 10.


A group is an unspecified, and possibly indeterminate, number.  You're 
thinking of small groups. :)


"That is not a knife"

Relation: 3550886
  Tags:
    "source"="some by handtracing from LIP Imagery July 2017"
    "natural"="wood"
    "type"="multipolygon"
    "landcover"="trees"
  Bounding box: 149.4633291, -34.587523, 150.6471078, -33.5803072
  Bounding box (projected): 1.663818168767947E7, -4107967.4930973584, 
1.676995932977539E7, -3972585.7971908352

  Centre of bounding box: -34.0839151, 150.0552184

Size
North to South 111km
East to West 102 km

It is not a 'regular shape' .. so 11322 sq km is a vast over estimation 
of its area .. say 5,600 sq km is more reasonable ... 1,398,267 acres



Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.





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

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relation.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 01:11 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> 11. Jun 2018 23:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
>> The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a
>> relation that has similar semantics to turn restrictions.. from/via/to.
>> Keep it simple (no multi via ways please).  This is already an understood
>> way of tagging things that connect 2 ways.
>>
>
> Driveway in the middle of a lane transition with turn restrictions.  What
> now?
>
>
> No problem? Why it would be an issue?
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

If a country's community decided to adopt one tagging method of forests,
wood and tree areas, and retagged all existing usage accordingly, more
could be done with (answered by) the data for that country. As it stands, I
don't see that happening in any country any time soon.

Especially natural=wood and landuse=forest are used effectively for the
same purpose. landcover=trees is gaining as an additional tag in the
expectance of (or hope for) future rendering. A lot of landuse=forest gets
landcover=scrub, by the way. When/If landcover is rendered, a lot of small
areas tagged landuse=forest and natural=wood within all kinds of landuses
would become just smaller landcovers over bigger landuse areas.  Then you
would still have the two wood/forest tags with very much overlap in meaning
and exactly the same rendering.



2018-06-12 22:56 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
>
>
> 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>
>
> I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
>
> landuse=forest and natural=wood
>
> after excluding very small areas.
>
>
>
>  Is the data suited for that ?
>
>
> Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many
> regions
>
> are unmapped or partially mapped.
>
>
>
> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>
>
> What you exactly want to find?
>
>
>
> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
>
>
> No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees are effectively synonymous.
>
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for details.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 13 June 2018 at 06:54, François Lacombe 
wrote:

> Hi Warin,
>
> 2018-06-12 11:52 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> What about calling them an 'exchange' ... though it could be confused
>> with money - foreign currency trading etc.
>>  So umm 'communication exchange' ?
>>
>
> Exchange is a good input, thank you
>
> telecom=exchange can't really be confused with amenity=bureau_de_change
> can you ?
> This would be shorter to type than telecom=telecommunication_exchange or
> even telecom=telephone_exchange and less redundant with key name "telecom"
> We can think about telecom=exchange_point to meet consistency with
> telecom=connection_point
>
> I would really enjoy a consensus on this
>

Yep, telecom=exchange works for me :-)

Thanks

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>




I would start from something like: total area of area covered by 


landuse=forest and natural=wood 


after excluding very small areas.


 

>  Is the data suited for that ?




Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many regions

are unmapped or partially mapped.





> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>




What you exactly want to find?


 

> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".




No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods 


natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees are effectively synonymous.




See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest 
 for details.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[François Lacombe]

Hi Warin,

2018-06-12 11:52 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

>
> What about calling them an 'exchange' ... though it could be confused with
> money - foreign currency trading etc.
>  So umm 'communication exchange' ?
>

Exchange is a good input, thank you

telecom=exchange can't really be confused with amenity=bureau_de_change can
you ?
This would be shorter to type than telecom=telecommunication_exchange or
even telecom=telephone_exchange and less redundant with key name "telecom"
We can think about telecom=exchange_point to meet consistency with
telecom=connection_point

I would really enjoy a consensus on this

All the best
François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To me,
> a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 or
> maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10.
>

A group is an unspecified, and possibly indeterminate, number.  You're
thinking of small groups. :)

Come up with a better term if you think it necessary.  I was trying to
convey that this was a tag that applied to
anything from a copse to a forest.  What we're trying to come up with a
suitable name for is a tag to use
when trees are too closely spaced *or trees which are not closely spaced
but cover a very large area) that
tagging individual trees would be far too much effort.

Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.
>


I've looked this up, and seems it is like 1.8 sqkm which are the same as
180 hectars. Typically a forest has between 400 and 1000 trees per hectar.
Now 72000 - 18 trees for me are not anywhere near a "group", and I
don't think this is "quibbling". I only asked to be sure about usage of the
term "forest" in names in the UK, as I suppose you are a native, and also
about the term "group".

Again, I was trying to use a word describing anything from a copse to a
forest.  And possibly even a large roundabout near
me which has several trees on it that are too closely-spaced to map
individually.  Mathematically, groups can be infinite
in size, although I don't think we have any forests that large.

indeed, the name belongs to a nature reserve. This is not about landuse or
> landcover, it is about something legally defined.
>

Nope, you've diverted onto a sidetrack.  This was about whether it is
sensible to continue to use landuse=forest both for
unlogged areas/groups/clusters of trees (better as landcover=trees) and for
logged areas/groups/clusters of trees.  There
will be other copses/woods/forests/groups/areas of trees which are not
nature reserves and are not grown for logging.

What we could have and don't have yet, is a systematic approach for nature
> reserves/protected areas about what the name is, e.g. "forest", "lagoon",
> "archipelago", "island", "hills", etc. It wouldn't mean all the area is a
> "forest", it only indicates what the name is about (in a formalized tag in
> English).
>

You're on that sidetrack again.  The tag landuse=forest is documented about
marking areas where trees are grown
to be logged, and which are periodically cut down, yet it is being used for
places like Sherwood Forest which are
largely landcover=trees.  The introduction of landuse=forestry and
deprecation of landuse=forest would help
resolve that.


inside the forest there will usually/often also be areas where landcover is
> not trees, e.g. lakes, meadows, etc., but which are contained in the
> legally protected area. These areas should not be mixed up (IMHO) with
> landcover or landuse, as their boundaries are not depending on each other.
>

Now you appear to have diverted to a sidetrack of your sidetrack.

A protected area may contain areas of trees that are not logged and areas
of water, amongst other things.  Landcover=trees
explains where there are trees not grown for logging better than
landuse=forest (which is supposedly about logging, and
doesn't apply to an area that is called a forest even though it has lakes
in it).

1) Outer area (however we tag it) has name Sherwood Forest.

2) Inside Sherwood Forest are one or more areas tagged landcover=trees and
possibly lakes, streams and meadows.

How we deal with that is (possibly) a different problem.  Right now, it's
about deprecating landuse=forest because it's
being used two different ways.  And we ended up on this massive diversion
because I happened to mention that one
reason people misuse landuse=forest because they encounter groups of trees
that aren't being grown for logging in
an area named (for example) Sherwood Forest.  The mention of Sherwood
Forest was to underline why landuse=forest
is a bad way of tagging things.  The fact that Sherwood Forest is a nature
reserve is a side issue.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-12 11:37 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
>> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
>> called "Xyz Forest"
>>
>>
>> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
>> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
>> more trees.
>>
>> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
> you're quibbling about the size of a group.
>


I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To me,
a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 or
maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10.




> Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.
>


I've looked this up, and seems it is like 1.8 sqkm which are the same as
180 hectars. Typically a forest has between 400 and 1000 trees per hectar.
Now 72000 - 18 trees for me are not anywhere near a "group", and I
don't think this is "quibbling". I only asked to be sure about usage of the
term "forest" in names in the UK, as I suppose you are a native, and also
about the term "group".



> It is a nature reserve and so it is not used for forestry (aka logging).
> There may
> be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically
> logged on a wide scale.
>


indeed, the name belongs to a nature reserve. This is not about landuse or
landcover, it is about something legally defined. What we could have and
don't have yet, is a systematic approach for nature reserves/protected
areas about what the name is, e.g. "forest", "lagoon", "archipelago",
"island", "hills", etc. It wouldn't mean all the area is a "forest", it
only indicates what the name is about (in a formalized tag in English).



> This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land
> used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
> Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
> says "forest").
>
> That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
> landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
> idea.
>



inside the forest there will usually/often also be areas where landcover is
not trees, e.g. lakes, meadows, etc., but which are contained in the
legally protected area. These areas should not be mixed up (IMHO) with
landcover or landuse, as their boundaries are not depending on each other.


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

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

[Marc Gemis]

While I'm in favour of  the landcover tag, landcover=trees is also not
really true. In most forests areas I know, trees do no occupy all the
space. There is plenty of room for grass, green plants and bushes on
the ground.
In some cases there is no other vegetation and it's just sand (or ground).

So if you use landuse=forest to indicate areas with lot's of trees,
is it then OK the overlap with other landuses ? I'm thinking of trees
in a private garden, trees in a pasture, etc.

Another problem I see are the named forests with lakes inside. Typical
mapping is multi-polygon with landuse=forest + name=xxx on the outer
ring and natural=water on the inner ring. Does this mean that the lake
is no longer part of the forest or just of the area covered with trees
? So is it also no longer part of the area named xxx ? (similar
problems with grass or bushes)

Another thing I do not understand is why we evolved from natural=wood
to landuse=forest and not from natural=heath to landuse=heath. (BTW,
natural=wood is still more popular at the moment than landuse=forest),
especially if you use the argument natural means "no human are
involved". Most heaths (if not all) are only surviving because humans
burns down parts or use sheep and cows to prevent large bushes and
trees from taking over.

How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
a country based on OSM-data ? Is the data suited for that ?
For me a forest is a place where you can do "slow" recreation: hiking,
cycling (typically MTBs), horse riding, though I understand some
forests are purely used for the timber production
How can I find those places with OSM data ?

I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
But how do you solve them in world with only "landuse=forest" ?

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:27 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be 
> implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified.
>
> I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM 
> Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass, 
> trees, scrub, and sand.
>
> 2018-06-12 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
>>> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often called 
>>> > "Xyz Forest"
>>>
>>>
>>> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has 
>>> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require 
>>> more trees.
>>>
>> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or 
>> you're quibbling about the size of a group.
>>
>> Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so it is 
>> not used for forestry (aka logging).  There may
>> be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically logged 
>> on a wide scale.
>>
>> This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land 
>> used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
>> Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it 
>> says "forest").
>>
>> That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or 
>> landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
>> idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in 
>> combination with landuse=forestry because what
>> is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or 
>> stumps.
>>
>>
>> I am coming around to this way of tagging.
>> Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
>> Some are forestry (yea!)
>> Some are parks ..
>> Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map colours 
>> ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is legally allowed 
>> in OSM)
>> Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is 
>> forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

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

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

[Lionel Giard]

The main idea that i got for barrier=retaining_wall is to indicate that
between the lower ground and the upper ground, there is a retaining wall
preventing the movement to got this way (most probably, car or bicycle
can't go through the retaining wall easily, as it act like a small
"cliff"). That's why it is a barrier.

In this example, only the wall would be indicated by this tag as it prevent
people to go directly in that direction easily (you would need to escalade
the wall), so it is better to take the path around with the stairs.

2018-06-11 18:25 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr :

> On 09.06.2018 23:13, marc marc wrote:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/
> Rehbrunnen_04.jpg/800px-Rehbrunnen_04.jpg
>
> Based on this picture, the current mapping is clearly incorrect. This
> basin doesn't qualify as a barrier=retaining_wall even if we allow for a
> very generous reading of the tag's definition.
>
> For most use cases, I believe it would be entirely sufficient to draw an
> area for the fountain, and add subtags as desired. For map users who are
> interested in how the fountain looks, the image and wikimedia_commons
> tags are already available.
>
> The mapper seems to be interested in going beyond that and creating a
> relatively detailed model of the fountain, which is a legitimate goal
> and might be useful in some applications, e.g. 3D rendering. However,
> I'd argue that our editors and data model aren't really the right tools
> for that job. It would seem more practical to create a model of the
> fountain in Blender or SketchUp, which could then be uploaded to the 3D
> Model Repository and linked with OSM.
>
> If we to try to model the fountain using OSM ways and areas anyway,
> though, then I'd rather see specialized tags for fountain micromapping
> (nano-mapping?) introduced. Re-purposing existing tags for this use case
> isn't a good idea imo.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Anton Klim  wrote:

>
> Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many
> conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably
> won't work.
>

I know you have already said you think a waiting room is different from
your proposal for a lounge and you're not
interested (at the moment) in tagging for waiting rooms.  However, I can
foresee that unless there is
amenity=waiting_room (or whatever we settle upon) then people WILL abuse
amenity=lounge (or whatever we
settle upon) for waiting rooms.  Most of them won't deliberately intend to
abuse the tag, they'll just be
going for the closest fit to what they're trying to map.  They probably
won't look at the wiki page telling them
it's not for that purpose, it will be what the editor pops up in response
to what they're asking for.

A good rule of thumb: if the mailing list has as many conflicting
interpretations/opinions over a tag as this one
has, it's likely to end up being used incorrectly in practise.  And then, a
few years down the line, we'll be looking
for tagging to replace it.

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

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

[Peter Elderson]

For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be
implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified.

I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM
Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass,
trees, scrub, and sand.

2018-06-12 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
>> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
>> called "Xyz Forest"
>>
>>
>> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
>> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
>> more trees.
>>
>> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
> you're quibbling about the size of a group.
>
> Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so it
> is not used for forestry (aka logging).  There may
> be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically
> logged on a wide scale.
>
> This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land
> used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
> Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
> says "forest").
>
> That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
> landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
> idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in
> combination with landuse=forestry because what
> is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or
> stumps.
>
>
> I am coming around to this way of tagging.
> Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
> Some are forestry (yea!)
> Some are parks ..
> Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map
> colours ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is legally
> allowed in OSM)
> Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is
> forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Anton Klim]

Indeed, I am myself somewhat opposed to a qualifier for each type of lounge
out there in the main key.
Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many
conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably
won't work.
In light of this, to avoid ambiguity and confusion, airport_lounge might be
a better option.

I could also potentially see the original amenity=lounge key, used with a
lounge=airport/rail/etc key.

Anton

2018-06-12 0:37 GMT+03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 11. Jun 2018, at 23:08, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
> >> On 10. Jun 2018, at 13:28, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> If proposed as amenity=waiting_room I'd vote for it.  If proposed as
> amenity=lounge I'd vote against it.
> >
> >
> > +1
>
>
> taking it back, sorry. We could probably have all three, waiting room/area
> and lounge.
>
> Maybe waiting_lounge? airport lounge has the disadvantage that it doesn’t
> cover the same concept in train stations. Unlike airports it is not common
> there, but some (major) train stations have those lounges, usually access
> is limited (e.g. first class ticket, or some kind of membership in a
> frequent client program).
>
> While I agree that lounge alone can be ambiguous, the qualifier ideally
> should not be repeating the context but describe the concept, -0.6 to
> airport_lounge.
>
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Warin]

On 12/06/18 19:26, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:51 PM, François Lacombe 
mailto:fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Could someone confirm that point to point or GPON fibre networks
are connected to a telephone exchange building too?


I think that's a reasonable assumption that will rarely be incorrect.  
Fibre was first used to replace many copper lines
between telephone exchanges and all else has been built upon from 
that.  First with ADSL where the DSLAMs were
in the exchange.  Later with FTTC and FTTP where the exchange was the 
star point for tunnels/hubs/poles.  Note

for technical purists: that was a gross oversimplification.

Can we call a fibre dedicated building a telephone exchange also ?

A good question.  And the answer is, it depends.

LINX (London Internet Exchange) is an example of a fibre-dedicated 
building that isn't about voice (although
VoIP may pass through it as just one component of all the traffic).  I 
wouldn't call it a telephone exchange.


OTOH, BT/Openreach plans to switch all POTS over to VoIP over 
FTTC/FTTP.  When that happens the old
telephone exchanges will be fibre dedicated, but they will still be 
telephone exchanges.


It's possible telcos have buildings that are star points for fibre 
trunks with no local loops.  I wouldn't call those
telephone exchanges.  Depending on the packet protocols they may not 
even be internet exchanges.


My feeling on this is that if it has local loops (or the FTTC/FTTP 
equivalent) it's a telephone exchange; if it

doesn't have them it's not.


What about calling them an 'exchange' ... though it could be confused 
with money - foreign currency trading etc.

 So umm 'communication exchange' ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:



> On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
> consistently used by a single organization for anything (and
often called "Xyz Forest"


interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of
trees has actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a
forest would require more trees.

Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote 
or you're quibbling about the size of a group.


Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so 
it is not used for forestry (aka logging). There may
be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically 
logged on a wide scale.


This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not 
land used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because 
it says "forest").


That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or 
landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used 
in combination with landuse=forestry because what
is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings 
or stumps.


I am coming around to this way of tagging.
Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
Some are forestry (yea!)
Some are parks ..
Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map 
colours ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is 
legally allowed in OSM)
Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is 
forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.


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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
> called "Xyz Forest"
>
>
> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
> more trees.
>
> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
you're quibbling about the size of a group.

Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so it is
not used for forestry (aka logging).  There may
be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically logged
on a wide scale.

This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land
used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
says "forest").

That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in
combination with landuse=forestry because what
is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or
stumps.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:51 PM, François Lacombe <
fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could someone confirm that point to point or GPON fibre networks are
> connected to a telephone exchange building too?
>

I think that's a reasonable assumption that will rarely be incorrect.
Fibre was first used to replace many copper lines
between telephone exchanges and all else has been built upon from that.
First with ADSL where the DSLAMs were
in the exchange.  Later with FTTC and FTTP where the exchange was the star
point for tunnels/hubs/poles.  Note
for technical purists: that was a gross oversimplification.


> Can we call a fibre dedicated building a telephone exchange also ?
>
> A good question.  And the answer is, it depends.

LINX (London Internet Exchange) is an example of a fibre-dedicated building
that isn't about voice (although
VoIP may pass through it as just one component of all the traffic).  I
wouldn't call it a telephone exchange.

OTOH, BT/Openreach plans to switch all POTS over to VoIP over FTTC/FTTP.
When that happens the old
telephone exchanges will be fibre dedicated, but they will still be
telephone exchanges.

It's possible telcos have buildings that are star points for fibre trunks
with no local loops.  I wouldn't call those
telephone exchanges.  Depending on the packet protocols they may not even
be internet exchanges.

My feeling on this is that if it has local loops (or the FTTC/FTTP
equivalent) it's a telephone exchange; if it
doesn't have them it's not.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna

[Jyri-Petteri Paloposki]

On 11.06.2018 10:29, Rory McCann wrote:
> I suggest adding `sauna=gay`, for a gay bathhouse. "gay" is a
> simplification since many men who have sex with men visit them (not just
> gay men). `sauna=msm` sounds clinical and might be not obvious to data
> users.
> 
> In some countries (like Germany) saunas are always naked, in others
> (e.g. Ireland) that is definitely not the case, you're expected to wear
> your swimsuit). I don't know if that's worth tagging or if data users
> should just deduce it from the country.

Thanks for the suggestion!

IMO this fits better as a separate amenity tag, with the sauna=* tag
only specifying what kind of saunas the amenity has – steam, dry etc. In
the wiki discussion I noted that there's a used (though undocumented)
tag brothel:saunaclub, which to me sounds a bit similar but might still
not be correct. Nevertheless I think this doesn't really fit with the
suggested tag, but needs to be a separate amenity tag.

Best regards,
-- 
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Warin]

On 12/06/18 17:53, Philip Barnes wrote:



On 11 June 2018 22:57:13 BST, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

On 12 June 2018 at 00:21, Philip Barnes  wrote:



On 11 June 2018 14:58:59 BST, Kevin Kenny



wrote:


For example my town has a largeish building,

They're not necessarily 'small' buildings, the way the Wiki

suggests:

I agree they are not small, the one in my small town is the same size

as

the swimming pool building.

Phil (trigpoint)


Getting away from mapping for a moment :-), but talking "telephone
exchanges" internationally.

Are all of your's the same as most (definitely the bigger ones) in
Australia, & built on absolute prime real estate? :-)

Exchanges near here are almost always in the centre of town, usually on
a
main road & frequently the busiest intersection - one even has ocean
views!


Pretty much, the Shrewsbury one is on prime land in the town centre with views 
over the River Severn.


They would have run as a star network - out from a point. The more central the 
point the less distance the wires run,
the less poles or underground trenches it took (I think the trenches came later 
when the number of wires on the poles became too much), the less it cost.
So they took land around the central pint of the then population.
The price of land back then was not so much especially when your the government 
and own bits of it already.

The size of the building would reflect the number of well off people (those who 
could afford a phone back then, though some may have been built later) ..
 and the self importance that the officials took of 'their' district.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Philip Barnes]

On 11 June 2018 22:57:13 BST, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>On 12 June 2018 at 00:21, Philip Barnes  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11 June 2018 14:58:59 BST, Kevin Kenny
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> For example my town has a largeish building,
>> >
>> >They're not necessarily 'small' buildings, the way the Wiki
>suggests:
>>
>> I agree they are not small, the one in my small town is the same size
>as
>> the swimming pool building.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>
>Getting away from mapping for a moment :-), but talking "telephone
>exchanges" internationally.
>
>Are all of your's the same as most (definitely the bigger ones) in
>Australia, & built on absolute prime real estate? :-)
>
>Exchanges near here are almost always in the centre of town, usually on
>a
>main road & frequently the busiest intersection - one even has ocean
>views!
>
Pretty much, the Shrewsbury one is on prime land in the town centre with views 
over the River Severn.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

[joost schouppe]

Nobody but me voted yet, so I did some more cleaning of the page. There was
still a mention of potty_area and there were some suggested extra tags that
are unnecessary because they already exist in some form.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging