Re: [Tagging] Is crop=yes tag completely and utterly useless?

2019-08-17 Thread Warin
Cannot farm land can be used for crops for some time, and then milk cattle for some other period of time? IIRC that is what one of my relatives did. On 18/08/19 11:20, Leif Rasmussen wrote: But isn't that the definition of farmland in OSM? I would map meadows, farmyards, and orchards with

Re: [Tagging] Is crop=yes tag completely and utterly useless?

2019-08-17 Thread Leif Rasmussen
But isn't that the definition of farmland in OSM? I would map meadows, farmyards, and orchards with their respective tags, not with landuse=farmland. Leif R On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Produce=crop would be worse, because “crop” is not a type of produce, and >

Re: [Tagging] Is crop=yes tag completely and utterly useless?

2019-08-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Produce=crop would be worse, because “crop” is not a type of produce, and produce= is only very rarely used for crop land ( crop= is the established key for types of crops like rice, sugarcane, wheat, etc) As I mentioned on the Talk:Key:crop page, I suspect that this tag crop=yes is sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Aug 2019, at 22:36, ael wrote: > > But do we have any generic terms already? Unless > you just mean office. businesses can already be found in amenity (e.g. food and drink, pharmacies, post offices, prisons (US), etc.), tourism, leisure, shop, craft, office,

Re: [Tagging] Is crop=yes tag completely and utterly useless?

2019-08-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Aug 2019, at 17:09, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 9326 of 9657 crop=yes is on landuse=farmland - it seems to me that it is > not adding any information whatsoever. certainly removing them would be even less useful? You could read it as a way of stating that

Re: [Tagging] Is crop=yes tag completely and utterly useless?

2019-08-17 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 16:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 9326 of 9657 crop=yes is on landuse=farmland - it seems to me that it is > not adding any information whatsoever. > Some farmland is used to grow crops. Some farmland is used to graze sheep or cows. So not entirely useless, but perhaps

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Aug 2019, at 15:18, Paul Allen wrote: > > Also out of courtesy. yes, there may always be considerations from individual mappers to refrain from mapping certain things , for different reasons like courtesy, respect etc., and this is perfectly fine (more difficult

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Aug 2019, at 13:49, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > I restarted the thread more recently with a specific example: > craft=atelier had just been documented after being used a dozen times, > and was added to the Key:craft page and to Map Features. My question > is:

[Tagging] Is crop=yes tag completely and utterly useless?

2019-08-17 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
Is there any situation where crop=yes should not be removed as utterly useless? 9326 of 9657 crop=yes is on landuse=farmland - it seems to me that it is not adding any information whatsoever. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/crop=yes#map

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
Again, software can not handle e.g. the E2 relation. Simple sort, fine, bridge a small gap, handle a roundabout, fine, but not the more serious route-breaking issues. You can't expect Garmin to solve that, it's a data issue in OSM. Currently the only way to solve it is making the data flawless:

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
In this case, I do NOT want to go from A to B. I want to do the hike, that is the route, exactly as it is specified OSM. Those ways, in the exact order. I want my smartphone or garmin to guide me exactly along those ways, which were carefully picked when the route was entered into OSM. If that

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
I agree with Andy Townsend here. Routes are complicated enough without needing to be always perfectly sorted. Software developers and database users should make up for this. Mapping is hard and takes precious human time. Computational cycles are cheap. OSM has never been designed to be used

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
If there's just information on paper or web, I wouldn't map it. If there is just an information board with a map, I would map that as tourist=information. I only map if there is actually something on the ground that shows where the route is. How accurate and adequate that is, is another matter.

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Andy Townsend
> You want to do the routing. I want to avoid that, because the routing has already been done. To be clear, I want to navigate from where I currently am to where

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-17 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 14:05, s8evq wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:00:32 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Does it have to be signposted as a walking route? > > > In my opinion yes. It's an objective fact, visible on the ground, and can > be verified. > Let's put it otherwise: "Besides signs

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
Your viewpoint is different from mine. You want to do the routing. I want to avoid that, because the routing has already been done. The OSM-relation IS a route. It is entered as an exact chain of ways to folllow. OsmAnd and Garmin should take the route itself, not waypoints to route to. It is odd

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-17 Thread s8evq
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 10:58:36 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > It is better to document the meaning of a property tag at its own wiki > page, so tools like Taginfo can make use of the description, but a tag used > only a handful of times does not need to be added to major feature pages >

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-17 Thread s8evq
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:18:38 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: >  - Speaking of "yellow", the table specifies that colour should be a > hex triplet, but wiki page for the colour key indicates that named HTML > colours are also acceptable values. And I know many trails are tagged > this way. So

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 13:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > you have mentioned the owner’s wishes already yesterday, but I wasn’t > aware we had a requirement that the owners must tolerate having their > property mapped. We don't (that I know of). > So far I thought the only strict

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Andy Townsend
> apps like OsmAnd, Garmin devices, and planner applicationsI can answer the Garmin bit of that, as it's something that I do all the time.Firstly, the ability to

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-17 Thread s8evq
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:00:32 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq wrote: > > > [1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order > > to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route > > is sufficient to be mapped] > >

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Volker Schmidt
The sequence of the component ways in a walking/hiking route relation is irrelevant for a hiker who use a navigation device to walk along the route. Why? How do you walk a walking route with a navigation device? Basically you have two options: A) you have prepared beforehand a GPX track, typically

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Aug 2019, at 13:22, Paul Allen wrote: > > But also no need not to map them should the > owners wish. you have mentioned the owner’s wishes already yesterday, but I wasn’t aware we had a requirement that the owners must tolerate having their property mapped. So

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
I would like to use walking route relations as they are in OSM, in apps like OsmAnd, Garmin devices, and planner applications. Currently, you can't. As far as I can see, they all re-route instead of using an already available route (= chain of ways). I would like to see unbroken elevation

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 12:53, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: That is, should wiki users and mappers feel free to add any newly > documented values of craft=, shop=, building=, office=, and sport= to > the Map Features wiki page, and the Key page (eg Key:office, > Key:craft), or should this always be

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 12:42, ael wrote: > > I would be all in favour of introducing "business" as long as it was > not restricted in that way. Easy with various values. It might > gradually evole and get used properly and gradually outnumber the old > misused office tag. Should not be too

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
This thread actually started with the question in the title: "Keys to which new values can be added (to Map Features) without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?" That is, should wiki users and mappers feel free to add any newly documented values of craft=, shop=, building=,

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread ael
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:27:22PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > It's both. Perhaps, with hindsight, most would agree that is sub-optimal > but that's > the way it is. More importantly, it's been that way for long enough that > fixing it is > probably not possible. Unfortunately, you are probably

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Andy Townsend
You haven't answered the question - I asked "Where are you going from and where are you going to?" in order to try and understand what real-life problem you're trying to solve. "I would like the ways of a relation to be sorted" is not a real-life problem.  What navigation software are you using

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 11:55, ael wrote: > > But surely parcels are seldom delivered to an "office" but typically to > reception in a business. Of course, reception may be part of an office, > especially in small organisations. > I'd normally class a reception as part of the larger organization

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread Paul Allen
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 01:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17/08/19 07:54, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > That said, in the few cases like that where a company doesn't specifically > make its location > public knowledge, if I

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
Op za 17 aug. 2019 om 12:31 schreef Andy Townsend : > > but I would like to see one make a plausible navigation route out of the > E2 Yorkshire relation as it is now. > > Where are you going from and where are you going to? Without that > information "make a plausible navigation route out of the

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread ael
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:54:52PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just places where > > the general public may have an interest in navigating to it. If you were to > > make

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
The issue here is that these relations are there, they conform to current wiki documentation, but you can't simply use them in applications other then for rendering. Some of the issues (sorting, bridge simple gaps) may be solved with software at the data user's side, but on the whole you can't

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Andy Townsend
> but I would like to see one make a plausible navigation route out of the E2 > Yorkshire relation as it is now. Where are you going from and where are you going to?  Without that information "make a plausible navigation route out of the E2 Yorkshire relation" makes no sense.  You could

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
Two routes, currently mapped together in one relation, but also containing subrelations, and not in the right order, and the total of that is part of a higher relation which also has variants. You can’t blame the route designers, you simply have to accommodate the real life variations. For

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Andy Townsend
On 17/08/2019 07:28, Peter Elderson wrote: Gpx gaps in some software do show up as straight lines. If it's just a missing piece and the rest is in order, no problem. In the case of the E2 in Yorkshire, lots of straight lines. Feed that to a navigation device and it will have you start in

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Peter Elderson wrote: > I would like to see this software in operation! Could you give me the > links of some applications I use my code in the backend of cycle.travel. It's not open source. I've seen code used by one other OSM-based site and there's a further one that's clearly using something

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Elderson
I know how to fix these issues. The point is, as it is it's not good enough for data use besides rendering. you can't rely on route relations for anything but rendering, and you can't fix that with software. It's not a tagging issue, though. Gpx gaps in some software do show up as straight