Re: [Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 11:56 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> A collapsed cave on land is a sinkhole. Is that not appropriate?
>

The wiki for natural=sinkhole seems to imply it is for any type of
sinkhole, however formed.  But
the wiki for sinkhole=* doesn't have anything that precisely matches this,
although sinkhole=pit
might do.

The natural=cliff idea is also sensible and correct for the edge of the hole
>

In this case, I think so.   I watched a youtube video of somebody walking
along the footpath nearby
and it gave me vertigo. :)

Natural=arch on a node is a great idea for the natural bridge between the
> collapsed section and the open sea. There are plenty of similar features on
> rocky coasts, Eg Oregon, Baja California, and in deserts due to wind
> erosion (eg Natural Arches monument in Utah)
>

It's not widely used and it's not documented, but it's definitely
appropriate.   One of the examples
I found of it on an area also had layer=1 but I have my doubts about that.
The sea is at sea level
and the ground is at ground level, so is it layer 1 or 0?  Probably best
not to bother with layer.

Small collapsed sea caves can become a “blowhole” if wave action causes
> water to erupt up through the hole, but it doesn’t sound like this is the
> case in this particular place.
>

You can fit quite a few kayaks in there and there's a small beach that
could hold a dozen people.  You
might get a water eruption if there were a tsunami.

That still leaves me wondering what to do with the water.  It's been mapped
as natural=water
without specifying what type of water because there's nothing that
matches.  The closest is
water=lagoon, but there's no barrier.  I'm half-inclined to map it as the
sea by tweaking the
coastline: if the natural arch collapsed then it would be mapped as sea.
If the natural arch collapsed
and were replaced by a man-made bridge it would still be sea.

It's complicated. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

A collapsed cave on land is a sinkhole. Is that not appropriate?

The natural=cliff idea is also sensible and correct for the edge of the hole

Natural=arch on a node is a great idea for the natural bridge between the
collapsed section and the open sea. There are plenty of similar features on
rocky coasts, Eg Oregon, Baja California, and in deserts due to wind
erosion (eg Natural Arches monument in Utah)

Small collapsed sea caves can become a “blowhole” if wave action causes
water to erupt up through the hole, but it doesn’t sound like this is the
case in this particular place.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:17 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 9:52 PM ael  wrote:
>
>>
>> No. I am sure that I have seen a dedicated/specialist term for exactly
>> these features. Just can't recall the details ATM.
>
>
> As I mentioned in another part of this thread, I subsequently found that
> the correct term for
> one of these is a littoral cave (if you want to be fancy) or a sea cave
> (if you want to be plain).  This
> particular one is a collapsed littoral cave.  Well, that's the best I
> could come up with after looking
> at various wikipedia pages.  As for existing, documented tags, nothing
> seems to be an exact
> match for this.
>
>
> --
> 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] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 9:52 PM ael  wrote:

>
> No. I am sure that I have seen a dedicated/specialist term for exactly
> these features. Just can't recall the details ATM.


As I mentioned in another part of this thread, I subsequently found that
the correct term for
one of these is a littoral cave (if you want to be fancy) or a sea cave (if
you want to be plain).  This
particular one is a collapsed littoral cave.  Well, that's the best I could
come up with after looking
at various wikipedia pages.  As for existing, documented tags, nothing
seems to be an exact
match for this.

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

Re: [Tagging] hydrants

[Rich]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 09:55:03PM +0200, bkil wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 10:27 PM OSMDoudou
> <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe leverage the existing direction tag (fire_hydrant:opening:direction) ?
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction
> >
> That sounds like a reasonable idea - I see that it is widely used.
> Although it is unfortunate how much bulk it adds.
> 
> Instead of
> fire_hydrant:opening=cw
> fire_hydrant:opening=ccw
> 
> You need to type:
> fire_hydrant:opening:direction=clockwise
> fire_hydrant:opening:direction=anticlockwise
> 
> Also, because the primary usage for `direction` usually relates to
> heading, you could interpret the tag as an answer to the question "in
> what direction does the opening of the fire hydrant face"?

What about using the standard engineering terms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#Handedness

fire_hydrant:handedness=right
fire_hydrant:handedness=left


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Is this name “Groble” the name of the land that surrounds the ponds, or is
it the name of the water features only?

I wouldn’t use locality for water areas.

Multipolygon would not be ideal, because that would double-count the amount
of water. If someone tries to analyze the number of lakes or total area of
lakes in the region it could lead to wrong results.

Maybe this is an example where site could work?

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:47 AM marc marc  wrote:

> place=locality and/or type=site
>
> I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of
> object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for
> each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination
> between theose types.
>
> Le 07. 10. 18 à 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
> >
> > - a water area called "Small Pond"
> > - a water area called "Big Pond"
> >
> > What is the best way to tag this?
> >
> > First part for obvious:
> >
> > - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> > - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> > - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
> >
> > But how relation should be tagged?
> >
> > Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would
> > be tagged twice.
> >
> > But maybe it would be OK?
> >
> > If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> > place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
> >
> > Is there a good way to tag something like that?
> >
> > real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 21:48, bkil  wrote:
> 
> I have a habit of extending and improving the wiki whenever I can.
> However, I only do this when I am absolutely sure that I am not doing
> any damage, for example by altering meaning.
> 
> Retroactively clarifying an ambiguous, but widely used tag in the wiki
> is not a good idea.


+1, usually it is safer to raise an issue on the talk page, you shouldn’t 
change or restrict the meaning of established tags.
What should be done is updating and improving the documentation according to 
actual, significant usage.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 13:43, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Note that "customers can" does not mean "customers must". It may mean that 
> one may buy
> 
> food and immediately leave or stay and eat at such place.
> 


I’d say for takeaway=only you cannot stay and eat there, for ‚yes‘ it could be 
but is not implied. The only places I know like these are delivery places where 
you can also order and take it away on the premises.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re:

never heard of a restaurant before that does not allow
> taking away your food


In the USA, most fancy, sit-down restaurants will not allow customers to
order food “to-go” (American for takeaway). You have to sit down and eat
the meal on the premises.

But if you don’t eat it all, they will probably provide a container to take
it home

So there certainly are “takeaway=no” restaurants. Certainly any
“reservations only” restaurant would fit this description.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[ael]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 08:32:56PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:10 PM ael  wrote:
> 
> There are tags for caves in general and could be applied to a sea cave.
> But the only way the
> cave tags can be applied to a collapsed sea cave is to pretend the collapse
> is a sink hole, which
> (according to the wiki and to my understanding of what a sink hole is), it
> isn't.

No. I am sure that I have seen a dedicated/specialist term for exactly
these features. Just can't recall the details ATM. Pretty sure I have
seen examples in Cornwall and else where. I think there was a news story
about a rescue from one such relatively recently. It may come to me
later...

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] hydrants

[bkil]

That sounds like a reasonable idea - I see that it is widely used.
Although it is unfortunate how much bulk it adds.

Instead of
fire_hydrant:opening=cw
fire_hydrant:opening=ccw

You need to type:
fire_hydrant:opening:direction=clockwise
fire_hydrant:opening:direction=anticlockwise

Also, because the primary usage for `direction` usually relates to
heading, you could interpret the tag as an answer to the question "in
what direction does the opening of the fire hydrant face"?

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 10:27 PM OSMDoudou
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe leverage the existing direction tag (fire_hydrant:opening:direction) ?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Free drinking water by private entities

[bkil]

>> Indeed the wiki page describes places that should be tagged with 
>> takeaway=only:
> I disagree with that.
>
> Note that "customers can" does not mean "customers must". It may mean that 
> one may buy
> food and immediately leave or stay and eat at such place.
>

I understand this part of the *wording* in the wiki, but do note that
the entities entered the database much sooner and this wiki was born
after the fact and the two may not be 100% consistent.

Your understanding of the tag as taking values of yes/no/only seems to
be the same as the understanding I had until last week and maybe half
of the world. In essence this tag signals whether literally taking
meals away is allowed. Actually as noted above, I'm stunned by the
vast popularity of takeaway=yes, because it is meaningless in this
interpretation (never heard of a restaurant before that does not allow
taking away your food). So all in all, this understanding boils down
to takeaway=yes/only, where yes is the default.

Unfortunately, the other half of the world (okay, maybe the
proportions are off) interprets takeaway=yes/no with takeaway=no as
default. In this case, takeaway=yes signals whether the venue is a
takeaway kind of place ('take-out', 'to-go', 'carry-out'). "Takeaway
kind of places" usually have no chairs and some may not have tables
either. They are more akin to shops, but they offer self-made fresh
products or meals, sometimes cooking on order. I do know a few of
these places nearby. I simply added amenity=fast_food to these without
second thought, but they are really a different category compared to
sit-down places.

> Do you think that it should be explicitly mentioned in WIki description?
> If yes, consider adding it to the description.
>

I have a habit of extending and improving the wiki whenever I can.
However, I only do this when I am absolutely sure that I am not doing
any damage, for example by altering meaning.

Retroactively clarifying an ambiguous, but widely used tag in the wiki
is not a good idea. I have a fear that a large number of users
misunderstood the meaning of this tag. I think we should introduce a
new tag in place of this one and start using that consistently,
otherwise we can never clean up the database.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[marc marc]

place=locality and/or type=site

I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of 
object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for 
each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination 
between theose types.

Le 07. 10. 18 à 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
> 
> - a water area called "Small Pond"
> - a water area called "Big Pond"
> 
> What is the best way to tag this?
> 
> First part for obvious:
> 
> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
> 
> But how relation should be tagged?
> 
> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would 
> be tagged twice.
> 
> But maybe it would be OK?
> 
> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
> 
> Is there a good way to tag something like that?
> 
> real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:10 PM ael  wrote:

> Is that the stream tagged with source = npe?


Yep.

 Just because you can't see it from your armchair, doesn't mean that it
> isn't there. Although

I admit npe is often a bit approximate, and it may have dried up.
>

NPE is very approximate.  And prone to blackouts from heavy drinking.  And
some hallucinations.

Maybe the NLS 2 1/2" historic map might shed more light.
>

OS OpenData StreetView matches what ESRI shows.  What is mapped is a stream
with a
right-angle turn into the basin and no drain from the basin.  What is not
mapped is the stream
continuing straight on to the sea as shown in OSODSV and is very visible in
ESRI.  What is not
mapped is the underground channel from the basin to the sea, marked on
OSODSV.  What is
mapped doesn't seem to match any of the write-ups I've seen for this
feature whereas OSODSV
does.  And even if the mapping is right for the stream, there is no arch
where it has been placed.

Just ATM, I can't recall the right terminology, but these
> partiallycollapsed sea caves are quite common, and I am sure I have seen
> them with a dedicated tag. No doubt someone else will chip in the proper
>
tags.
>

There are tags for caves in general and could be applied to a sea cave.
But the only way the
cave tags can be applied to a collapsed sea cave is to pretend the collapse
is a sink hole, which
(according to the wiki and to my understanding of what a sink hole is), it
isn't.

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

Re: [Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[ael]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> I've encountered a feature called, in English, "Witch's Cauldron" (also
> "Witches Cauldron" and "Witch's Pit") and
> called, in Welsh, "Pwll y Wrach."  It was mapped by somebody else around 4
> years ago and the mapping has
> one definite error and a couple of things that may be wrong.  The problem
> It currently shows a tributary of nearby river connecting the hole in the

Is that the stream tagged with source = npe?  Just because you can't
see it from your armchair, doesn't mean that it isn't there. Although
I admit npe is often a bit approximate, and it may have dried up.
Maybe the NLS 2 1/2" historic map might shed more light.

Just ATM, I can't recall the right terminology, but these partially
collapsed sea caves are quite common, and I am sure I have seen them
with a dedicated tag. No doubt someone else will chip in the proper
tags.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 6:26 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> I would tag it as a waterway in tunnel (though I have no idea about a
> suitable value)
>

For me, a tunnel is man-made, not natural.  The tunnel=* I see in the wiki
seem (at quick glance)
to all be man-made.

or as water area with covered=yes and natural=bare_rock area mapped, both
> with a proper tags.
>

Better, although natural=arch seems like a better fit, even if it's
undocumented.  But that still
doesn't deal with the water under the arch and in the basin.

It also sounds like it is a tourism=attraction .
>

A very minor attraction.  I was intending to add that but it didn't seem to
pose any problems so I
didn't mention it.

Sounds a bit similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Hole_(Red_Sea) -
> though
> this one is entirely underwater and of a different origin.
>

Not a good match.  But it led me into a twist maze of Wikipedia pages and
eventually I found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_cave  So now I know that technically it
is a collapsed littoral
cave or collapsed sea cave.  There's one in Oregon called Devil's Punchbowl
which has been
turned into a proper tourist attraction:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.74739/-124.06529
Whoever mapped that didn't deal with the water aspect in any way but did
add something I hadn't
thought of: the cliff edge around it.  Without the water it just looks like
a hilly area with a depression.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I hoped to avoid that sidetrack.

Question is the same, no matter whatever "and proper type" meanstype=site or 
type=multipolygon.

7. Oct 2018 18:31 by t...@fitchdesign.com :


> Perhaps a site relation. :)
>
>
> On October 7, 2018 9:07:48 AM PDT, Mateusz Konieczny <> 
> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>> Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
>> - a water area called "Small Pond">> - a water area called "Big Pond"
>> What is the best way to tag this?
>> First part for obvious:
>> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond">> - way with natural=water 
>> and name="Big Pond">> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and 
>> proper type
>> But how relation should be tagged?
>> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be 
>> tagged twice.
>> But maybe it would be OK?
>> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like 
>> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
>> Is there a good way to tag something like that?
>> real example: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489 
>> 
>>   
>
> -- 
> 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] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I would tag it as a waterway in tunnel (though I have no idea about a suitable 
value) oras water area with covered=yes and natural=bare_rock area mapped, both 
with a proper tags.
It also sounds like it is a tourism=attraction .

Sounds a bit similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Hole_(Red_Sea) 
 - thoughthis one is 
entirely underwater and of a different origin.

7. Oct 2018 19:11 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> I've encountered a feature called, in English, "Witch's Cauldron" (also 
> "Witches Cauldron" and "Witch's Pit") and> called, in Welsh, "Pwll y Wrach."  
> It was mapped by somebody else around 4 years ago and the mapping has> one 
> definite error and a couple of things that may be wrong.  The problem is I'm 
> not sure what the correct> mapping would be.
> It's here: > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3200691239#map=18/52.07127/-4.77079 
> 
> It's a complicated geological feature.  I've yet to come across any 
> description of this particular feature that> gives a name for that type of 
> feature, and perhaps there isn't one.  The only way I can describe it is by 
> the> processes that led to it.  It once consisted of a stratum of soft rock 
> at sea level, overlain by harder rock.> Tidal erosion formed a cave by 
> removing the soft rock, leaving a layer of hard rock forming the roof.  
> Eventually,> part of the roof collapsed.  The result is a hole in the ground 
> with sea water at the bottom, with a tunnel from 
> the hole to the sea.  Depending upon the state of the tide it's possible to 
> traverse the tunnel from the sea to> the hole (but only in something like a 
> kayak, nothing larger).
> It's been mapped as an area of natural=water (no other tags).  In the centre 
> of the water is a node tagged> natural=arch, which is not an arch at all.  
> The arch is about 25m NW of that node.  OS OpenData StreetView> (available as 
> background imagery in iD and possibly in other editors) shows a thick, grey 
> dashed line> connecting the water in the hole to the coast's high water mark 
> and nearby are the words "Natural Arch."
> It currently shows a tributary of nearby river connecting the hole in the 
> ground.  Such an interpretation is> not backed up by the OS or ESRI 
> backgrounds (Bing is too unclear to cast any light on the issue).  Nor> is 
> this backed up by any description of the feature I've found.
>
> So natural=arch is in the wrong place.  Arguably it should be a closed way 
> covering the water passage 
> underneath, possibly with layer=1.  The tributary that isn't visible in OS 
> should be removed.  And some sort> of water should be mapped (whether it 
> renders or not, just for routeing) under the arch connecting sea to>  hole in 
> the ground.  But what sort of water?  And what additional tag to use for the 
> water in the hole?  It's> not really a pond, it's part of the sea.
>
> I can't think of a good way to do it.  The least bad train of thought I had 
> was how it would be mapped if the> arch collapsed.  In that case the HWM 
> would extend inland to encompass the hole in the ground, which might> perhaps 
> be tagged as a cove, because that's what it would be.  So why not do that 
> with a natural=arch over it?
> Any better ideas?  If nobody can come up with anything convincing, I'll leave 
> it alone and pretend I never saw> it. :)
> -- 
> Paul
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

[Paul Allen]

I've encountered a feature called, in English, "Witch's Cauldron" (also
"Witches Cauldron" and "Witch's Pit") and
called, in Welsh, "Pwll y Wrach."  It was mapped by somebody else around 4
years ago and the mapping has
one definite error and a couple of things that may be wrong.  The problem
is I'm not sure what the correct
mapping would be.

It's here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3200691239#map=18/52.07127/-4.77079


It's a complicated geological feature.  I've yet to come across any
description of this particular feature that
gives a name for that type of feature, and perhaps there isn't one.  The
only way I can describe it is by the
processes that led to it.  It once consisted of a stratum of soft rock at
sea level, overlain by harder rock.
Tidal erosion formed a cave by removing the soft rock, leaving a layer of
hard rock forming the roof.  Eventually,
part of the roof collapsed.  The result is a hole in the ground with sea
water at the bottom, with a tunnel from
the hole to the sea.  Depending upon the state of the tide it's possible to
traverse the tunnel from the sea to
the hole (but only in something like a kayak, nothing larger).

It's been mapped as an area of natural=water (no other tags).  In the
centre of the water is a node tagged
natural=arch, which is not an arch at all.  The arch is about 25m NW of
that node.  OS OpenData StreetView
(available as background imagery in iD and possibly in other editors) shows
a thick, grey dashed line
connecting the water in the hole to the coast's high water mark and nearby
are the words "Natural Arch."

It currently shows a tributary of nearby river connecting the hole in the
ground.  Such an interpretation is
not backed up by the OS or ESRI backgrounds (Bing is too unclear to cast
any light on the issue).  Nor
is this backed up by any description of the feature I've found.

So natural=arch is in the wrong place.  Arguably it should be a closed way
covering the water passage
underneath, possibly with layer=1.  The tributary that isn't visible in OS
should be removed.  And some sort
of water should be mapped (whether it renders or not, just for routeing)
under the arch connecting sea to
hole in the ground.  But what sort of water?  And what additional tag to
use for the water in the hole?  It's
not really a pond, it's part of the sea.

I can't think of a good way to do it.  The least bad train of thought I had
was how it would be mapped if the
arch collapsed.  In that case the HWM would extend inland to encompass the
hole in the ground, which might
perhaps be tagged as a cove, because that's what it would be.  So why not
do that with a natural=arch over it?

Any better ideas?  If nobody can come up with anything convincing, I'll
leave it alone and pretend I never saw
it. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Yves]

This case sounds not so abusive of multipolygons. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Tod Fitch]

Perhaps a site relation. :)


On October 7, 2018 9:07:48 AM PDT, Mateusz Konieczny  
wrote:
>Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
>- a water area called "Small Pond"- a water area called "Big Pond"
>What is the best way to tag this?
>First part for obvious:
>- way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"- way with natural=water
>and name="Big Pond"- relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and
>proper type
>But how relation should be tagged?
>Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas
>would be tagged twice.
>But maybe it would be OK?
>If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like 
>place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
>Is there a good way to tag something like that?
>real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
>

-- 
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

[Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
- a water area called "Small Pond"- a water area called "Big Pond"
What is the best way to tag this?
First part for obvious:
- way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"- way with natural=water and 
name="Big Pond"- relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
But how relation should be tagged?
Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be 
tagged twice.
But maybe it would be OK?
If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like 
place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
Is there a good way to tag something like that?
real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489 

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

Re: [Tagging] relation site <> multipolygon

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Thanks. I added it to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Examples 


7. Oct 2018 17:23 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> The relation is > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2721886 
> 
> The historic place link only works if you manually select a base map
> from the menu.
>
> regards
>
> m.
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>>
>> I found (again) >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site 
>> 
>> and I am trying to improve it.
>>
>> "multiple cave entrances of a single cave" sounds like a good example of a 
>> valid use
>> but >> 
>> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=BFT&detail=3
>>  
>> >>
>>   is not loading properly for me.
>>
>> Can you link directly OSM relation of this object?
>>
>> 2. Oct 2018 18:01 by >> marc.ge...@gmail.com >> 
>> :
>>
>> This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
>> same system that is apparantly protected:
>> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=BFT&detail=3
>>  
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>> <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com >> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2. Październik 2018 12:36 od >> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>> Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>> > Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
>> it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.
>>
>> take again the example you cut in the initial message:
>> a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
>> I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
>> to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
>> it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
>> between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site
>>
>>
>> I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.
>>
>>
>> So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful
>>
>> (I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard
>>
>> for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).
>>
>> ___
>> 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] relation site <> multipolygon

[Marc Gemis]

The relation is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2721886
The historic place link only works if you manually select a base map
from the menu.

regards

m.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
> I found (again) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
> and I am trying to improve it.
>
> "multiple cave entrances of a single cave" sounds like a good example of a 
> valid use
> but 
> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=BFT&detail=3
>  is not loading properly for me.
>
> Can you link directly OSM relation of this object?
>
> 2. Oct 2018 18:01 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
> same system that is apparantly protected:
> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=BFT&detail=3
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
>
>
> 2. Październik 2018 12:36 od marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:
>
> Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
> it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.
>
> take again the example you cut in the initial message:
> a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
> I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
> to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
> it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
> between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site
>
>
> I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.
>
>
> So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful
>
> (I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard
>
> for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).
>
> ___
> 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] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[François Lacombe]

Le sam. 6 oct. 2018 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer  a
écrit :

> It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a
> watch tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc.
> but they are all watch towers.


With this logic, all objects in OSM would be mapped with a unique tag.
object=black_road_with_cycle_lanes_in_each_direction.

A watch tower is as complex as a road with several features, not a simple
object.
I don't get why a power tower can't be used as communication and watch
tower also.

Experience shows us that providing tagging assemblies is more
comprehensive, versatile and sustainable.
man_made=tower + usage=watch + material=wood sounds better than
man_made=wooden_watch_tower


All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2. Oct 2018 22:42 by t...@fitchdesign.com :

>
> There might be nodes marking locations of emergency equipment cache 
> locations. And, for an alpine/downhill ski area there one or more ski 
> lifts/aerial best mapped as ways.
>
> So how do you add single nodes or linear ways to a multipolygon?
>




In many cases (for example swings on playgrounds)

there is no need to mark nodes as being within an area - this is already done 
by placing swing within

playground area.




I suspect that it may be also OK for emergency equipment cache location nodes 
and

ski lift ways.




Can you link example of a relation where it is not enough and was mapped as a 
site relation?

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

Re: [Tagging] relation site <> multipolygon

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I found (again) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site 
and I am trying to 
improve it.
"multiple cave entrances of a single cave" sounds like a good example of a 
valid use 
but 
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=BFT&detail=3
 

 is not loading properly for me.
Can you link directly OSM relation of this object?

2. Oct 2018 18:01 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> This relation combines a number of cave entrances the belong to the
> same system that is apparantly protected:
> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=16&lat=50.67804&lon=7.22231&layers=BFT&detail=3
>  
> 
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:08 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>>
>> 2. Październik 2018 12:36 od >> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>> Le 02. 10. 18 à 11:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>> > Can you link this case if that is more complicated?
>> it's a fictional example. ok not the better one.
>>
>> take again the example you cut in the initial message:
>> a wind turbin site with a few turbines represented by a few nodes
>> I hope your solution is not to make a way for each wind turbine
>> to be able to add in into a multipolygon to describe the site.
>> it would not make much sense to make a polygon encompassing all objects
>> between the wind turbines and describe that the whole thing is a wind site
>>
>>
>>  I agree that for wind turbines multipolygon may not be feasible.
>>
>>
>> So far it is the only known to me case where site relation maybe is useful
>>
>> (I have no experience with features like wind turbine farms so it is hard
>>
>> for me to judge this case - that is why I skipped it).
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Greengrocer vs grocery vs shop=food?

[Yves]

Not sure it's a good idea to render it if no one really knows what it means :)
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Greengrocer vs grocery vs shop=food?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

7. Oct 2018 04:33 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com 
:


> So this tag isn't very specific yet




I used it because it was not specific for 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3033173319 





It is selling only one type of food (pierogi) that are relatively easy to 
prepare but are 


not edible immediately after buying (so it is not takeaway fast food).




I guess that in many cases people  were unaware about alternatives or there was 
no suitable tag

so they decided to use shop=food as generic one.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

[Mateusz Konieczny]

6. Oct 2018 22:04 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com :


> Also, it is strange that takeaway is not mentioned on the wiki page of
> drive_through.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drive_through 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drive_in 
> 
>




Feel free to edit page and add it. 


 

> Indeed the wiki page describes places that should be tagged with 
> takeaway=only:
>




I disagree with that.


 

> >>The key takeaway=* is mostly used with the value yes on eateries to 
> >>indicate that customers can purchase a meal to be consumed elsewhere. 




Note that "customers can" does not mean "customers must". It may mean that one 
may buy

food and immediately leave or stay and eat at such place.


 

> So `takeaway=yes` is being mistagged worldwide and is really meant to
> flag a kind of fast_food outlet where you can not consume your food in
> place, or at least there are no chairs to sit on? 




takeaway=only is supposed to cover places with only takeaway available.




Do you think that it should be explicitly mentioned in WIki description?




If yes, consider adding it to the description.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging