Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2 Jun 2019, 12:10 by frede...@remote.org:

> - propose tags only if you, personally, have solid demand for it (i.e.
> you have already mapped, or intend to map, the feature intensively).
> This puts a practical limit to idle tag fantasising. Everyone can think
> of something that doesn't have a tag yet - that is the cheap part...
>
Or you will use. For example I mapped just handful of man_made=bridge
but went with proposal to confirm that this tagging scheme is desirable
before implementing display of this object type in
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1633 


(I wanted to provide alternative for building=* incorrectly used on bridge
outlines to force rendering)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4 Jun 2019, 02:16 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> waterway=canal / drain / ditch
> navigation=yes/no
> irrigation=yes/no
> drainage=yes/no
>
Maybe also drainage=only/irrigation=only would make sense.

If it is unwanted then explicit documentation of that solely boolean
yes/no is acceptable would be nice.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4 Jun 2019, 01:53 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> There are two possible replacements:
>
> 1) Usage=irrigation
>
(...)

> 2) Irrigation=yes
>
(...)

> Here's my draft proposal, still in user namespace, since the key is
> not yet certain:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jeisenbe/Irrigation
>
Given that 
* waterway may be used for many purposes, especially in cases
where irrigation is one of them it is quite likely to have other 
major uses

* iD had trouble in the past with tags where single key was used 
for many purposes (it was AFAIK triggered by service key) 

*for now both versions seems to work equally well

maybe use irrigation=yes?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 09:55, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> 2) Irrigation=yes
>
> With this tag, it would be possible to also use "drainage=yes", so a
> canal used for both drainage and irrigation could be "waterway=canal"
> + "irrigation=yes" + "drainage=yes" - this leads to using an extra
> tag, but doesn't require any semicolon-separated values.
>
>
> I originally started writing a proposal for "usage=irrigation" and
> "usage=drainage", but when I checked the details, I realized that
> "irrigation=yes" and "drainage=yes" might be more likely to be
> approved.
>

That it was I was also thinking

waterway=canal / drain / ditch
navigation=yes/no
irrigation=yes/no
drainage=yes/no

KISS!


> To me either tag would be preferred over service=irrigation, so I
> agree with deprecating it, once we get an alternative approved.
>


Yep, usage=irrigation is much nicer than service=

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On 6/4/19, marc marc  wrote:
> having 2 key with the same meaning is not a good thing.
> I'm in favor of deprecing service=irrigation in favor of
> usage=irrigation, more consistent with other usage=* values
> used on other waterways.

I agree that service=irrigation is a poor choice of key. This key is
mostly used to specify the type of service highway (eg
service=driveway) or the type of service railway (eg service=spur),
but it's also used for the type of services provided at a car repair
shop (eg service=tyre).

There are two possible replacements:

1) Usage=irrigation

This key is already approved for use with waterways and pipelines,
with the tags usage=penstock, usage=headrace, usage=transmission and
usage=distribution

The tag has increased over the past 2 years, and is now used about
6000 times - half as common as service=irrigation

However, the key "usage=" is also used with railways, eg usage=main,
usage=branch. This might be considered a problem by some mappers,
though at least all of the values used for railways are completely
different than the list of values used for waterways and pipelines.

The other issue is that canals or ditches used for both irrigation and
drainage (depending on the season) would need to be tagged like
"usage=irrigation;drainage", and a long-distance canal that transmits
irrigation water might need to be tagged
"usage=transmission;irrigation"

2) Irrigation=yes

This is actually the oldest of the tags, used since 2009. The only
other usage of the key "irrigation=" is with "irrigation=pivot",
tagged on landuse=farmland which is irrigated by a central pivot
system.

With this tag, it would be possible to also use "drainage=yes", so a
canal used for both drainage and irrigation could be "waterway=canal"
+ "irrigation=yes" + "drainage=yes" - this leads to using an extra
tag, but doesn't require any semicolon-separated values.


I originally started writing a proposal for "usage=irrigation" and
"usage=drainage", but when I checked the details, I realized that
"irrigation=yes" and "drainage=yes" might be more likely to be
approved.

To me either tag would be preferred over service=irrigation, so I
agree with deprecating it, once we get an alternative approved.

Here's my draft proposal, still in user namespace, since the key is
not yet certain:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jeisenbe/Irrigation

-Joseph


> Le 03.06.19 à 22:19, François Lacombe a écrit :
>> Hi all
>>
>> Regarding the particular situation of service vs usage keys, JOSM team
>> wonders if service may be moved to usage
>> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17770
>>
>> Don't blame them on "deprecate" word, which should be understood as
>> "discouraged".
>> Question is "Should we keep service in use for destination of water
>> leading in man made waterways?"
>>
>> François

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

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:28 PM Nita Rae Sanders  wrote:
> Here is one possible example of what you seem to be describing … way 84255726
>
> Within Florida's Oleno State Part, the Santa Fe River vanishes into a
> sinkhole. It then reappears at River Rise Preserve State Park. the
> route, as depicted in the way (a mile +/-), is the presumed
> subterranean path. The way is tagged as tunnel=yes, which seems odd,
> yet descriptive (but as a tunnel, it would be natural and not
> man-made).

I live in glaciokarst terrain, so these things are interesting to me.

I've not attempted to map underground connections, since so many are
unverifiable - or would need specialized equipment and introduction of
tracers in the water.

Hence, I've mapped a few places like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5599524737, in which I don't assume
an underground connection even though it *appears* pretty obvious. (I
also didn't tag the rise, since I couldn't observe it directly or
necessarily spot it on the available aerials. It's pretty well
screened by brush, and I'd be trespassing to stray that far from the
established trail there. I mapped the stream where I was confident of
its course.)

I would have Absolutely No Idea what flow regime most of the
underground connections have. Many of these little streams emerge from
'fools' crawls' in which the water is clearly not under significant
pressure at the outlet, but were there's too little headroom to allow
a caver to explore. It's likely a mixture of free flow, pipe flow and
percolation, in any case.

Similarly, it's pretty well established that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226924460 is a dissolution sinkhole
and the water that flows underground through it has been traced into
multiple small streams emerging from cave entrances (too small to
explore) below the escarpment to its east. Alas, a lot of these
streams are as yet unmapped. Mapping would be difficult since they
cascade over unstable talus and off-trail travel there is prohibited.
I've not attempted to map anything about the subterranean hydrography;
it's not understood at all well.

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

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[marc marc]

having 2 key with the same meaning is not a good thing.
I'm in favor of deprecing service=irrigation in favor of 
usage=irrigation, more consistent with other usage=* values
used on other waterways.

Le 03.06.19 à 22:19, François Lacombe a écrit :
> Hi all
> 
> Regarding the particular situation of service vs usage keys, JOSM team 
> wonders if service may be moved to usage
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17770
> 
> Don't blame them on "deprecate" word, which should be understood as 
> "discouraged".
> Question is "Should we keep service in use for destination of water 
> leading in man made waterways?"
> 
> All the best
> 
> François
> 
> Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 22:41, François Lacombe  > a écrit :
> 
> Hi
> 
> I agree with aqueduct as a system composed of bridges, tunnels,
> pipes and canal (not only a bridge crossing a valley).
> 
> Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 16:10, Mateusz Konieczny
> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> a écrit :
> 
> I think that in this case, with only
> 
> usage=headrace
> waterway=canal
> 
> tags even a perfect renderer would have a trouble.
> 
> 
> That's right
> It misses a structure
> Tunnel and bridge can eventually help respectively for underground
> and overhead situations.
> Another key or value have to be determined to describe overground
> lining (and other possibilities)
> 
> If the canal have a constant width, it can be added with width=*
> referring to water width at its surface
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] New description of waterway=pressurised

[Nita Rae Sanders]

Here is one possible example of what you seem to be describing … way 84255726

Within Florida's Oleno State Part, the Santa Fe River vanishes into a
sinkhole. It then reappears at River Rise Preserve State Park. the
route, as depicted in the way (a mile +/-), is the presumed
subterranean path. The way is tagged as tunnel=yes, which seems odd,
yet descriptive (but as a tunnel, it would be natural and not
man-made).

On 6/3/19, François Lacombe  wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Le sam. 1 juin 2019 à 12:07, Joseph Eisenberg 
> a écrit :
>
>> Are there currently any natural siphons tagged as waterway=pressurised in
>> the database?
>>
>> How would a mapper know that a natural siphon exists?
>>
> As some mapper may be speleologists, like other mapper can be climber or
> any activity requiring special skills, we may take advantage of their
> experience and welcome their contribution to document what they saw
> underground
> If you have to dive to progress in a cave, it's surely because of siphons I
> guess.
>
> Wouldnt they be tagged as waterway=river or =stream based on those
>> definitions?
>>
> No, both stream and river are free flow whereas a siphon is a pipe flow
> waterway.
>
> I'm not against a better word than pressurised, especially to keep a line
> between natural and man made structures.
> As previous mail stated that, you should write a proposal and vote it to
> make waterway=pressurised dedicated to man made structures and a new term
> for natural siphons.
>
> All the best
>
> François
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[François Lacombe]

Hi all

Regarding the particular situation of service vs usage keys, JOSM team
wonders if service may be moved to usage
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17770

Don't blame them on "deprecate" word, which should be understood as
"discouraged".
Question is "Should we keep service in use for destination of water leading
in man made waterways?"

All the best

François

Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 22:41, François Lacombe  a
écrit :

> Hi
>
> I agree with aqueduct as a system composed of bridges, tunnels, pipes and
> canal (not only a bridge crossing a valley).
>
> Le ven. 31 mai 2019 à 16:10, Mateusz Konieczny 
> a écrit :
>
>> I think that in this case, with only
>>
>> usage=headrace
>> waterway=canal
>>
>> tags even a perfect renderer would have a trouble.
>>
>
> That's right
> It misses a structure
> Tunnel and bridge can eventually help respectively for underground and
> overhead situations.
> Another key or value have to be determined to describe overground lining
> (and other possibilities)
>
> If the canal have a constant width, it can be added with width=* referring
> to water width at its surface
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

[François Lacombe]

Hi Joseph,

Le sam. 1 juin 2019 à 12:07, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> Are there currently any natural siphons tagged as waterway=pressurised in
> the database?
>
> How would a mapper know that a natural siphon exists?
>
As some mapper may be speleologists, like other mapper can be climber or
any activity requiring special skills, we may take advantage of their
experience and welcome their contribution to document what they saw
underground
If you have to dive to progress in a cave, it's surely because of siphons I
guess.

Wouldnt they be tagged as waterway=river or =stream based on those
> definitions?
>
No, both stream and river are free flow whereas a siphon is a pipe flow
waterway.

I'm not against a better word than pressurised, especially to keep a line
between natural and man made structures.
As previous mail stated that, you should write a proposal and vote it to
make waterway=pressurised dedicated to man made structures and a new term
for natural siphons.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

[Peter Elderson]

> Op 3 jun. 2019 om 15:02 heeft Florian Lohoff  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 11:11:50AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> LS
>> I agree that email is not the best tool for discussions. The main thing for
>> me is that the world of email is no longer limited to one mailer. It is not
>> possible to make them all thread and separate and quote exactly as I would
>> like. Basically, it's just a list of mails without any logical order.
> 
> That is definitly a client problem. I am reading mails by thread and
> can ignore threads, mark complete threads as read and i exactly see
> who is responding to whom.
> 
> With the tree i see i can even detect the most controversal or
> responded messages without opening them.

Sure. If you use one mailclient and control it completely, you can do a lot. 
You know, like in the old days. Unfortunately, these are the new days, where 
people move around and use whatever client or browser is available.

> 
>> The OSM forum is not the best forum you could imagine, but it works much
>> better for keeping track of discussions and outcomes, including threading,
>> limited quoting, searching, back-reading, and starting spin-off subjects.
>> And it works on all devices, without having to tame all of them separately
>> (which I am not even allowed to do on many of them). Moderating a forum is
>> also much easier.
>> 
>> So I would be very much in favour of moving to the forum.
> 
> I will definitly not follow to the forum. Its a pull media so i need to
> explicitly point and click to follow issues.

No need to pull anything. It’s there and it stays there. You go there to 
participate. you can get notifications and digest by mail if you like.
If you don’t like to point and click/tap, you do have a problem with all  
current applications.

> Mail communication can be much more complex and may fade to different
> subthreads. Large threads form into a tree and not some linear easy
> thing. Thats a problem of a newer generation not having read
> stuff like the Netiquette RFC1855 - Change the subject if your 

I know that stuff. It’s hopelessly outdated, and adds unnecessary complexity 
where simplicity is so much more, uh, simple.

Anyway, i’m skipping more and more of the mailing list messages, because it’s a 
pain to even keep track of what it’s about. Costs lots of time and seldom pays 
off. I get much more value from the dutch osm forum.


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

Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 11:11:50AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> LS
> I agree that email is not the best tool for discussions. The main thing for
> me is that the world of email is no longer limited to one mailer. It is not
> possible to make them all thread and separate and quote exactly as I would
> like. Basically, it's just a list of mails without any logical order.

That is definitly a client problem. I am reading mails by thread and
can ignore threads, mark complete threads as read and i exactly see
who is responding to whom.

With the tree i see i can even detect the most controversal or
responded messages without opening them.

> The OSM forum is not the best forum you could imagine, but it works much
> better for keeping track of discussions and outcomes, including threading,
> limited quoting, searching, back-reading, and starting spin-off subjects.
> And it works on all devices, without having to tame all of them separately
> (which I am not even allowed to do on many of them). Moderating a forum is
> also much easier.
> 
> So I would be very much in favour of moving to the forum.

I will definitly not follow to the forum. Its a pull media so i need to
explicitly point and click to follow issues.

Mail communication can be much more complex and may fade to different
subthreads. Large threads form into a tree and not some linear easy
thing. Thats a problem of a newer generation not having read
stuff like the Netiquette RFC1855 - Change the subject if your dicussion
fades.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

[marc marc]

Le 03.06.19 à 11:11, Peter Elderson a écrit :
> in favour of moving to the forum

it's a totally personal choice.
some  prefer emails because it is easier to apply the criteria of your 
choice (read everything, or filter according to flexible criteria).

if you prefer a forum/web interface, why don't you use them ?
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-June/thread.html
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
it's far from perfect, but it should be enough for those
who think it's the solution.
imho it doesn't change the fundamental problem.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

[Peter Elderson]

LS
I agree that email is not the best tool for discussions. The main thing for
me is that the world of email is no longer limited to one mailer. It is not
possible to make them all thread and separate and quote exactly as I would
like. Basically, it's just a list of mails without any logical order.

The OSM forum is not the best forum you could imagine, but it works much
better for keeping track of discussions and outcomes, including threading,
limited quoting, searching, back-reading, and starting spin-off subjects.
And it works on all devices, without having to tame all of them separately
(which I am not even allowed to do on many of them). Moderating a forum is
also much easier.

So I would be very much in favour of moving to the forum.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


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