[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - man_made=footwear_decontamination

[Warin]

Hi,

Following discussions here and on the Australian list .. here is the 
proposal for man_made=footwear_decontamination.




https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dfootwear_decontamination


I would be pleased with more examples.



Note the discussionpage has some comments of subtags that some people 
have thought of.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/man_made%3Dfootwear_decontamination#Further_classifications



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - highway strip

[Warin]

On 17/07/18 07:55, Warin wrote:

On 16/07/18 22:00, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote:
Hi, starting voting on the previously proposed aeroway=highway_strip 
tag. The proposal can be found in 
. 
Best regards,


Started a new subject, so it attracts attention from those not 
following the comments thread.


Well that did not do whatI thought :) ... sorry - I think the 2nd 
attempt has worked.


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - highway strip

[Warin]

 Feature Proposal - Voting - highway strip

On 16/07/18 22:00, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote:

Hi, starting voting on the previously proposed aeroway=highway_strip 
tag. The proposal can be found in 
. 
Best regards,


2nd try to started a new subject, so it attracts attention from those 
not following the thread on comment for highway strip.


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 17/07/18 08:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On 17 July 2018 at 06:31, Alan Grant > wrote:


But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for
golf courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover
that may exist between the fairways and greens?


No, I mentioned it because the golf course in question is "built" 
entirely inside the boundaries of an area designated as "State 
Forest", which is intended for logging purposes, so it renders on OSM 
as a light green patch entirely covered by trees. Don't know what will 
happen if I then map tree rows, bunkers, water hazards & so on - guess 
we'll have a small patch of blue with trees in it as well?


I think the area cannot be used for logging. There is a saw mill in the 
Tumut NSW Australia area (Batlow IIRC?) operated by the Forestry 
Commission, designated as a state forest .. yet it is correctly tagged 
as land use industrial in OSM. I would think the same applies to the 
golf course - map what is there, not necessarily the official 
designation ... it could be out of date, what ever the case what is on 
the ground should override any other source of information.



On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>
wrote:
> landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for
area used for logging-related purposes


But doesn't the wiki say that landuse=forest is for managed forests, 
intended for logging purposes (or similar wording - can't open it ATM 
for some reason?), which this entire area is?


Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped 
in OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use.

We simply cannot map them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 16 July 2018 at 08:56, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
>>
> Use a multipolygon relation.
>

Thanks Paul, I'll give that a go when I get a chance.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 17 July 2018 at 06:31, Alan Grant  wrote:

> But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for golf
> courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover that may exist
> between the fairways and greens?
>

No, I mentioned it because the golf course in question is "built" entirely
inside the boundaries of an area designated as "State Forest", which is
intended for logging purposes, so it renders on OSM as a light green patch
entirely covered by trees. Don't know what will happen if I then map tree
rows, bunkers, water hazards & so on - guess we'll have a small patch of
blue with trees in it as well?


>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>>>  wrote:
>>> > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for
>>> logging-related purposes
>>>
>>
But doesn't the wiki say that landuse=forest is for managed forests,
intended for logging purposes (or similar wording - can't open it ATM for
some reason?), which this entire area is?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - ephemeral

[Warin]

Hi,

The proposal for the property key ephemeralis open for voting.

Link to the page - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ephemeral



If you vote for the key, then please also vote on the key intermittent 
either being a default or a manual entry.


For some past discussion on the intermittent tag see the discussion page.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - highway strip

[Warin]

On 16/07/18 22:00, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote:
Hi, starting voting on the previously proposed aeroway=highway_strip 
tag. The proposal can be found in 
. 
Best regards,


Started a new subject, so it attracts attention from those not following 
the comments thread.


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 17/07/18 06:31, Alan Grant wrote:
But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for golf 
courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover that may 
exist between the fairways and greens?


And those areas can and should be tagged natural=wood -it renders, it 
does not imply a land use, and 'natural' is taken as both natural and 
unnatural.




On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 22:21, Paul Allen > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kevin Kenny
mailto:kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
> landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area
used for logging-related purposes

And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the
former.


As I recall (recollection may be flawed) the last go-round, the
following seemed to be the case:

1) landuse=forest was intended for forestry, but the value
(forest) was badly chosen.  Growing trees to be logged
is a use of the land.

2) landcover=trees wasn't currently rendered (my recollection may
be particularly bad on that).

3) Because landuse=forest is badly named (should have been
forestry) and therefore misleading, and because
landcover=trees isn't rendered, landuse=forest was being used for
two things.

4) Usual arguments about what constitutes a forest versus a wood
and other noise as the whole thread
degenerated.

My take on it: tag trees for logging purposes as landuse=forestry
(note spelling) and trees not for logging
purposes as landcover=trees or natural=wood as preferred (we can
have that argument another time). Then
change the wiki to say that landuse=forest is deprecated because
it gets misunderstood and misused, and point
to the alternatives.  Introducing two new tags that supersede an
existing tag used ambiguously is the only hope of
making this sort of thing work.

Landuse=forestry is less likely to be misused because "forestry"
means logging and because we'd have
landcover=trees (which might even constitute something named "XYZ
Forest".

None of this stands a chance of happening unless OSM Carto agrees
to implement landuse=forestry and
landcover=trees.  People don't use tags that don't render.  Well,
for small, specialized things they do, but for big
areas of trees they won't.  OSM Carto often won't implement new
tags because they're not used much; people don't
use new tags that don't render.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  What a
shame we don't have a forum like a mailing list where
we could all agree on sensible things to do and then they happen.

-- 
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



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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Alan Grant]

But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for golf
courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover that may exist
between the fairways and greens?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 22:21, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>>  wrote:
>> > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for
>> logging-related purposes
>>
>> And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
>> that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the former.
>>
>
> As I recall (recollection may be flawed) the last go-round, the following
> seemed to be the case:
>
> 1) landuse=forest was intended for forestry, but the value (forest) was
> badly chosen.  Growing trees to be logged
> is a use of the land.
>
> 2) landcover=trees wasn't currently rendered (my recollection may be
> particularly bad on that).
>
> 3) Because landuse=forest is badly named (should have been forestry) and
> therefore misleading, and because
> landcover=trees isn't rendered, landuse=forest was being used for two
> things.
>
> 4) Usual arguments about what constitutes a forest versus a wood and other
> noise as the whole thread
> degenerated.
>
> My take on it: tag trees for logging purposes as landuse=forestry (note
> spelling) and trees not for logging
> purposes as landcover=trees or natural=wood as preferred (we can have that
> argument another time).  Then
> change the wiki to say that landuse=forest is deprecated because it gets
> misunderstood and misused, and point
> to the alternatives.  Introducing two new tags that supersede an existing
> tag used ambiguously is the only hope of
> making this sort of thing work.
>
> Landuse=forestry is less likely to be misused because "forestry" means
> logging and because we'd have
> landcover=trees (which might even constitute something named "XYZ Forest".
>
> None of this stands a chance of happening unless OSM Carto agrees to
> implement landuse=forestry and
> landcover=trees.  People don't use tags that don't render.  Well, for
> small, specialized things they do, but for big
> areas of trees they won't.  OSM Carto often won't implement new tags
> because they're not used much; people don't
> use new tags that don't render.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  What a shame we
> don't have a forum like a mailing list where
> we could all agree on sensible things to do and then they happen.
>
> --
> 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] Golf wiki page

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
> > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for
> logging-related purposes
>
> And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
> that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the former.
>

As I recall (recollection may be flawed) the last go-round, the following
seemed to be the case:

1) landuse=forest was intended for forestry, but the value (forest) was
badly chosen.  Growing trees to be logged
is a use of the land.

2) landcover=trees wasn't currently rendered (my recollection may be
particularly bad on that).

3) Because landuse=forest is badly named (should have been forestry) and
therefore misleading, and because
landcover=trees isn't rendered, landuse=forest was being used for two
things.

4) Usual arguments about what constitutes a forest versus a wood and other
noise as the whole thread
degenerated.

My take on it: tag trees for logging purposes as landuse=forestry (note
spelling) and trees not for logging
purposes as landcover=trees or natural=wood as preferred (we can have that
argument another time).  Then
change the wiki to say that landuse=forest is deprecated because it gets
misunderstood and misused, and point
to the alternatives.  Introducing two new tags that supersede an existing
tag used ambiguously is the only hope of
making this sort of thing work.

Landuse=forestry is less likely to be misused because "forestry" means
logging and because we'd have
landcover=trees (which might even constitute something named "XYZ Forest".

None of this stands a chance of happening unless OSM Carto agrees to
implement landuse=forestry and
landcover=trees.  People don't use tags that don't render.  Well, for
small, specialized things they do, but for big
areas of trees they won't.  OSM Carto often won't implement new tags
because they're not used much; people don't
use new tags that don't render.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  What a shame we
don't have a forum like a mailing list where
we could all agree on sensible things to do and then they happen.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for 
> logging-related purposes

And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the former.
There are at least three ways to tag "this area is tree-covered:"
landuse=forest, natural=wood and landcover=trees. There is no widely
accepted tag for "land that is used for forestry." In the most recent
go-around, I even heard some users claiming that having such a tag is
undesirable, because ill-informed mappers will simply repurpose it
into a fourth tag meaning "land covered by trees." (That made my head
spin. I can't have a tag that means what I want to say because OTHERS
will misuse it?)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared zones?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

15. Lipiec 2018 12:11 od o...@westnordost.de :

> We tag shared zones (where that sign is visible) as
> highway=living_street, but tag the speed limit explicitly to what can be
> read on the sign. As said, in all countries that implemented shared
> zones so far, the actual speed limit is explicitly given on the sign.




 Seems to be a good idea to me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16. Lipiec 2018 00:32 od graemefi...@gmail.com :


>  built within the boundaries of a designated State Forest, intended for 
> logging purposes, so it > is>  landuse=forest as far as OSM is concerned, but 
> it is also leisure=golf_course!




landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for 
logging-related purposes

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - highway strip

[Jyri-Petteri Paloposki]

Hi,

starting voting on the previously proposed aeroway=highway_strip tag.
The proposal can be found in
.

Best regards,
-- 
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

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