Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

I've edited the page: 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny just made, for better English style. 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not recommended". I also removed the suggestion

[Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

Hello, Sorry for cross posting. I am looking for specific tags for Satellite Dish [1]. I haven't found anything near so far. May be am missing something, else it doesn't exist and might be useful to propose and come handy in some cases. Ever mapped something like this or any idea will be great.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

“how can a protected_AREA be anything but an area?” Right. Please don’t add area=yes to these features. This tag is only needed for features that can be either a linear feature OR an area, for example barrier=hedge. (Mapping large protected areas mapped as closed ways to relations of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:56 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes >> to closed ways that are tagged boundary={aboriginal_lands, >> national_park, protected_area} and lack any other keys

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:47 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > > don't function as 'national park'

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:42 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 21:25, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks >> by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they >> don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term. the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> For specific kind of sites (e.g. protected under a specific international >> treaty) we could have specific tags to identify them if desired, e.g. >> protection_context=natura2000 >> or >> protection_context=state_park >>

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 21:25, Kevin Kenny wrote: But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term. > Instead, the typical State Park

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:38 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Second, it pushes the problem down one level. Near me, there are >> 'County Parks' that are functionally pretty much the same as State >> Parks, and even 'County Forests', 'County Nature

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be > reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, > for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain > “admin_level”

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

28 Jul 2019, 11:12 by o...@imagico.de: > On Saturday 27 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >> Please take a minute to review the new page >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status >> >> Thanks for creating it and submitting it

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

28 Jul 2019, 18:33 by o...@imagico.de: > > IMO if those criteria are significant (which i don't doubt as far as > they can be objectively determined) it is much more useful to document > how far a tag meets these criteria individually than to determine an > aggregate score of some sort from

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

There are many tags with status 'de facto' indicated that do not meet at least some of your criteria: landuse=meadow landuse=forest natural=wood place=square waterway=drain and there are tags with status 'in use' indicated that at least meet some of the criteria: highway=turning_circle

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Approved - Line attachments

Hi all, Voting period on line attachments proposal is now over. 23 pros votes make the new key line_attachment approved, thanks to voters for their support https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_attachments The proposal took approx 1 year to be mature enough for the vote and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 17:34, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known, > so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the > administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially > if

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

I don't think it would be easy to automate. My impression is that the "de facto" status tags and keys area usually: 1) In use for a long time. Most are been around since 2008 or sooner, but at least for several years if newer. This requires checking http://taghistory.raifer.tech or old database

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I dislike the numeric classification as well. > That's good. We agree on something. :) I dislike 'leisure=state_park' for two reasons. > > First, it preëmpts the 'leisure' tag. It turns out that there are > State Parks that are also

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known, so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially if the operator=* is not the same. > 'strict_nature_reserve', 'wilderness_area',

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be > reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, > for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain > “admin_level” also in

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 15:37, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I don't think there is a reasonable verifiable way to define a > sub-classification among tags that are widely accepted to be used with > a certain meaning but that have never successfully gone through a > proposal

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Paul Allen wrote: > I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental information that data > consumers can make > use of as they wish (including ignoring it). I have an intense dislike of > numbers being used for > anything other than numeric values because

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen wrote: > > I have an intense dislike of numbers being used for > anything other than numeric values because they are not amenable to human > inspection. Sure, > editors can unobfuscate things by using an internal lookup table, but

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Sunday 28 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Christoph, do you have any ideas about how we could be more inclusive > and make it easier for mappers from other countries to create and > document new tags? I think emphasizing and reaffirming the fact that the wiki is to document the de

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

I think Christoph brings up a very good point. If I understand correctly, he wasn't accusing the new page of saying "this is the right way to use statuses", since it just describes and explains how the current "status" feature is currently used. But rather, he was saying that by just describing

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Correction: obsolete is only used 6 times with tags and 0 keys at the moment, but "discardable" is also used with 7 keys in addition to 1 tag, so that's 8 times. The "discardable" status is clearly different from "deprecated" as you mentioned. >> Perhaps there should be a wiki page created that

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 02:36, Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a > clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like > leisure=state_park > +1 I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 11:12, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > ultimately > means recommended by those who have dominance over editing the wiki who are they? Everybody can modify the wiki (and indeed from my experience the wiki is more the sum of many individual, punctual and

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 10:20 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please take a minute to review the new page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status > Overall, this looks pretty good! I am in favor of documenting the status of tags and this wiki page is a

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Saturday 27 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Please take a minute to review the new page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status > > [...] A bit of a general remark here - the OSM wiki has for quite some time been torn between being an attempt to document the established

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 10:03, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But "obsolete" is only used 6 times, and seems to mean the same thing > as "deprecated". Perhaps we can just edit these 6 features and remove > the status to simplify things? >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 07:51, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for > osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above > 7. > > None of the higher values is used very

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Good point about "deprecated" and "obsolete". The status "deprecated" is much more common; it's been used 115 times and has a well-used list: But "obsolete" is only used 6 times, and seems to mean the same thing as "deprecated". Perhaps we can just edit these 6 features and remove the status to