Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Or you will use. Thanks for handling man_made bridge. I use it a lot. The only comment to this idea of “make tags for you to use” is that if you invent a tagging method for a particular type of object, that you include similar objects that people would like to map to avoid tag fragmentation. If you propose amenity=foobar, I expect you to consider a subtag like foobar=* or foobar:type=* to be able to define different types of the foobar people encounter. if you are proposing a new tag foo_bar=* to handle x, y, & z, I expect you to consider l,m,n,o & p as well - even if you don't use them - because trying to get them “approved” later is very difficult, and people will use incorrect tags on objects just to complete mapping if that is the case. the Tagging mailing list extends the **tagging system**, It’s not just for solving a single particular mapping issue for an individual. Tags can be extended later, but it means convincing people to support a sinlge tag value they don't care about individually or don't understand the usefulness of, when it probably would have easily been approved without objection if it was included in the original proposal. the golf=cart_path recently comes to mind. Javbw ___ 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]
On 6/4/19, François Lacombe wrote: > According to semantics of canals and ditches, a canal can't be used for > drainage and a ditch/drain shouldn't be used for irrigation Many mappers are using waterway=ditch for irrigation I wrote a long analysis of the situation at this page; https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jeisenbe/Waterway_Widths Of the 4 tags that specify usage for irrigation (service/usage=irrigation, irrigation=yes and canal/ditch=irrigation) there are 10519 waterway=canal vs 3673 waterway=ditch specified - so over 25% are ditches. As far as drainage: in southern California and Arizona the large drainage features are called canals, because they can be 10m wide or more and have concrete lining. My wife says they were always warned not to play in the canals, even though it was fun to skateboard down the concrete embankments, because they could suddenly fill with flash-flood water if it had been raining in the mountains around Phoenix. There is a separate system of canals that is dedicated to irrigating farmland, in addition to a long-distance aqueduct from the Colorado river. 75% of waterway=drain are 2m wide or less, so most mappers do not use this tag for wide, canal-sized drainage waterways. While it might be possible to encourage mappers to use waterway=drain or waterway=ditch for drainage canals of all sizes, this would require map renderers to check the width tag for these types of waterways as well. Right now waterway=canal is the only type of waterway that is ambiguous as to size: drains and ditches are small, like streams, but an irrigation canal can be as large as a river or as small as a minor stream or drain, based on the understanding that "canal" is the correct value for all sizes of irrigation features (and for things like mill races). Charts: Natural waterway widths: 1) Cummulative percentage below a certain width - https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/42757252/58748368-a5aaf380-84b2-11e9-8a14-05ad3ca3781b.png 2) Bar chart - adding up to 100% - https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/42757252/58745525-06273a00-848d-11e9-8d5f-eac7daa81eb7.png Artificial waterway widths: 3) Cummulative percentage below a certain width - https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/42757252/58748367-a479c680-84b2-11e9-8ab8-9d57841c77af.png 4) Bar chart - 100% - https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/42757252/58745526-08899400-848d-11e9-9b90-79ec753ab735.png More charts at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3795 And eventually I'll add them to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jeisenbe/Waterway_Widths - Joseph ___ 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]
sent from a phone > On 4. Jun 2019, at 17:09, Peter Elderson wrote: > > There is no main usage, except keeping water levels in all parts of the > polders within very narrow range this seems to be a very distinct usage, albeit not only irrigation or drainage but both. Maybe usage=regulation or gauge_regulation? or usage=polder / polder_management? Cheers, Martin ___ 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]
Apparently I was not clear enough. There is no main usage, except keeping water levels in all parts of the polders within very narrow range. All else varies according to varying needs, wishes and opportunities. If it rains a lot, the whole system drains. If it doesn't rain at all, the whole system irrigates. If it rains exactly the amount that evaporates and leaks, the system just holds water. In the meantime you can use the bigger ditches and canals for human things like boating, fishing and small transport. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op di 4 jun. 2019 om 16:36 schreef François Lacombe < fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>: > > Le mar. 4 juin 2019 à 14:07, Peter Elderson a > écrit : > >> All the waterways can drain, transport water/people/goods, and irrigate, >> as needed. >> > > Transportation is not transmission. Transportation of water over a canal > means loading water into boats and send them over the canal. > Those canals aren't intended to transmit water like the Los Angeles > Aqueduct does. > > Many headrace or transportation canals can also serve a water discharge > where local drains end. > Drainage can't be the first usage because if drainage water stops, > transportation, navigation and irrigation should still be possible. > Then, the two main usages can be irrigation and transportation according > to your explanations > > Am I wrong? > ___ > 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] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]
On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, François Lacombe wrote: > Le mar. 4 juin 2019 à 14:07, Peter Elderson a écrit : > > > All the waterways can drain, transport water/people/goods, and irrigate, > > as needed. > > > > Transportation is not transmission. Transportation of water over a canal > means loading water into boats and send them over the canal. > Those canals aren't intended to transmit water like the Los Angeles > Aqueduct does. > > Many headrace or transportation canals can also serve a water discharge > where local drains end. > Drainage can't be the first usage because if drainage water stops, > transportation, navigation and irrigation should still be possible. > Then, the two main usages can be irrigation and transportation according to > your explanations > > Am I wrong? > Not wrong, but there are edge cases for example The Llangollen Canal for example, whilst very popular with boaters, it crosses the world heritage site Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, is also used to carry water from The Dee to Cheshire for public water supply. Discovered this after wondering why so much water flows through the lock bypass channels. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ 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]
Le mar. 4 juin 2019 à 14:07, Peter Elderson a écrit : > All the waterways can drain, transport water/people/goods, and irrigate, > as needed. > Transportation is not transmission. Transportation of water over a canal means loading water into boats and send them over the canal. Those canals aren't intended to transmit water like the Los Angeles Aqueduct does. Many headrace or transportation canals can also serve a water discharge where local drains end. Drainage can't be the first usage because if drainage water stops, transportation, navigation and irrigation should still be possible. Then, the two main usages can be irrigation and transportation according to your explanations Am I wrong? ___ 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]
The Dutch system of "polders" uses waterways for drainage, transport and irrigation, but not in a source2target way. Basically, a "polder" is a bathtub wherein several waterlevels (rings) are maintained through a network/maze of canals and ditches. When it rains a lot, water is pumped out of the polders; in dry periods, water is moved into the polders. All the waterways can drain, transport water/people/goods, and irrigate, as needed. I guess we would have mainly waterway=canal and waterway=ditch, and very few waterway=drain where e.g. an industrial facility drains its wastewater. usage=* does not have meaning for most of these waterways. Flow direction vary. You do want to know if it's accessible/allowed for rowboats/motorboats/canoes. And maybe if you can cross them with a jumping-pole. Very important in some areas. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op di 4 jun. 2019 om 12:09 schreef François Lacombe < fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>: > Hi Joseph, > > Le mar. 4 juin 2019 à 01:55, Joseph Eisenberg > a écrit : > >> 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. >> > > To me it's not an issue but someone can indeed have different opinion. > > >> 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" >> > > According to semantics of canals and ditches, a canal can't be used for > drainage and a ditch/drain shouldn't be used for irrigation > > Transmission should overcome any other value as it consists in leading > water from source to consumption places for more precise purpose. > We do have same approach with power lines or highway > You won't tag an actual motorway highway=motorway;service;residential for > the reason it leads to residential or service highways at its end. > > 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. >> > > This shouldn't occur according to my comment upside. > usage values should not intersect with each others, I think there is no > need of yes/no values for it. > > Feel free to give any example where it doesn't work. > > All the best > > François > > ___ > 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] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 03:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > * iD had trouble in the past with tags where single key was used > for many purposes (it was AFAIK triggered by service key) > I think there were several triggers. The discussion on github I encountered was with covered=* being used for telephone booths. AFAIK, the iD team are still unhappy with tags that have different sets of values depending upon context. They don't have a problem with foo=X, Y and Z being applicable to wibble=*, wobble=* and rhubarb=*. What they have a problem with is if foo=X, Y and Z is only applicable to wibble=*, foo=P, Q and R is only applicable to wobble=* and foo=A, B and C is only applicable to rhubarb=*. That kind of thing complicates populating drop-downs of values for a tag. Either it requires extra code to decide which values are sensible in a given context or you get a drop-down with all the values, so that it's easy to mistag a railway as service=irrigation. -- Paul ___ 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]
Hi Joseph, Le mar. 4 juin 2019 à 01:55, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > 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. > To me it's not an issue but someone can indeed have different opinion. > 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" > According to semantics of canals and ditches, a canal can't be used for drainage and a ditch/drain shouldn't be used for irrigation Transmission should overcome any other value as it consists in leading water from source to consumption places for more precise purpose. We do have same approach with power lines or highway You won't tag an actual motorway highway=motorway;service;residential for the reason it leads to residential or service highways at its end. 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. > This shouldn't occur according to my comment upside. usage values should not intersect with each others, I think there is no need of yes/no values for it. Feel free to give any example where it doesn't work. All the best François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
