date:20200124

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
> But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think.

Well, then, let's clarify the intention, narrow the definition, choose
a more appropriate keyword if necessary, wikify the narrowed
definition, and use that, rather than rejecting the idea out of hand.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Paul Allen

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 19:22, Mark Wagner  wrote:

>
> "Active" is too vague to be mapped.
>

+1

Like Kevin Kenny, I have no problem with allowing for different levels of
expertise.  I have no problem with making use of expert sources (as long
as there is a good consensus and their opinions are widely available).  But
"active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think.

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Clifford Snow

As a person living 50km from an "active"  but dormant volcano, Mount Baker
[1], I definitely know its status. What I'm not sure of is the OP
definition of active. Mount Baker is an active but dormant volcano that
only puts out a bit of steam. For a while, in my life time, Arenal in Costa
Rica was regularly putting out lava, but has gone dormant, since my first
visited. If the OP is talking about active in the sense that it's not
dormant then I don't believe it should be tagged as active. Most volcanoes
don't erupt for long periods.

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a tag to indicate the status as active in
the sense it may erupt at anytime (in geological time frames sense)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Baker
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenal_Volcano

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:16 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
> > That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts
> > damaged by a previous eruption.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors.
> >
> > Similarly frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically
> verifiable quantity,
> > since determining it would require long-term observations
> > which are not realistic for mappers to do.
>
> I think if we go very far down that road, we need explicitly to codify
> what we expect the capabilities and limitations of amateur surveyors
> to be.
>
> I can't quite bring myself to accept the argument that correct
> information, independently verifiable by some means (even if
> specialized), and known to a mapper, cannot be mapped because some
> other mapper is less capable. I could live with it if we were to
> fomalize what we expect a mapper's limitations to be - but I see very
> little hope of achieving consensus on that, and very little reason to
> try.
>
> I feel strongly that tagging should respect both capabilities and
> limitations. I shouldn't have to do research to sketch out the basics
> of what I can see with my own eyes in the field, but similarly, I
> shouldn't have to keep my local knowledge to myself. For example, I
> don't think I could reliably tell an estravelle from a ponor, but that
> doesn't keep me from mapping 'natural=sinkhole'. I have no objection
> to someone with the necessary knowledge adding 'sinkhole=*' to the
> tagging.  I would object to a tagging scheme that would require me to
> discriminate the two, but that's not what we're talking about with
> tagging that a volcano is active. A mapper who doesn't have the
> information, or cannot provide a means to verify it, need not tag it.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Mark Wagner

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:04:21 +0100
Cascafico Giovanni  wrote:

> vHello ML!
> this query [1] is supposed to display active volcanes. I made some
> research using Sentinel-2 browser, but it happens that most volcanoes
> doesn't have an infrared response [2].
> 
> Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active?

"Active" is too vague to be mapped.  For example, geologists would
consider Mount Rainier to be active because it's producing the
occasional earthquake swarm or steam vent, while the average person
would say it's dormant because it hasn't erupted since 1854.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)

Jan 24, 2020, 18:19 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> Human readability is a convenience, but is not reflected in the data 
> structure at all.
>
I strongly disagree with this. Nearly all tags are human readable, with rare 
exception
like extremely complicated opening hours or wikidata (where lack of human 
readability 
is an often repeated complaint).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
> That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts
> damaged by a previous eruption.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors.
>
> Similarly frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically verifiable 
> quantity,
> since determining it would require long-term observations
> which are not realistic for mappers to do.

I think if we go very far down that road, we need explicitly to codify
what we expect the capabilities and limitations of amateur surveyors
to be.

I can't quite bring myself to accept the argument that correct
information, independently verifiable by some means (even if
specialized), and known to a mapper, cannot be mapped because some
other mapper is less capable. I could live with it if we were to
fomalize what we expect a mapper's limitations to be - but I see very
little hope of achieving consensus on that, and very little reason to
try.

I feel strongly that tagging should respect both capabilities and
limitations. I shouldn't have to do research to sketch out the basics
of what I can see with my own eyes in the field, but similarly, I
shouldn't have to keep my local knowledge to myself. For example, I
don't think I could reliably tell an estravelle from a ponor, but that
doesn't keep me from mapping 'natural=sinkhole'. I have no objection
to someone with the necessary knowledge adding 'sinkhole=*' to the
tagging.  I would object to a tagging scheme that would require me to
discriminate the two, but that's not what we're talking about with
tagging that a volcano is active. A mapper who doesn't have the
information, or cannot provide a means to verify it, need not tag it.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)

2020-01-24 Thread Evan Derickson

Rather than "Mismatching key names", what about "Counterintuitive key
names"?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:20 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> OK,
> my wording was intentionally provoking. But this basic conceptual issue is
> at the base of many unnecessary tagging modifications.
> I refrained from adding the OSM version of the duck principle.
> One of the items in the proposed page illustrates well why I think people
> need to get the message that we only use words as codes, not as meaning.
>
> We had for a long time waterway=canal and for the outline we used
> water=riverbank (and we still mostly do use that combination). Perfectly
> working, we did not care if we were mapping the bank of a river or the bank
> of a canal. At some point someone came up with the idea that canal is not a
> river hence a riverbank is not a canalbank and introduced water=canal for
> the concept of  the canalbank.
> (I am a bit exaggerating here the reason for the change was different -
> see the thread "[Tagging] Canal banks")
>
> My basic message is tags are made of key and value and everything is
> codewords. We have build a whole structure into the codewords with several
> levels of colons in order to make extracting things form the database
> easier, but this is not part of the core structure of the database.
>
> There is no mismatch between natural=water and water=canal if you
> understand that all keys and values are codewords. Human readability is a
> convenience, but is not reflected in the data structure at all.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 15:31, Jarek Piórkowski 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>> > Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
>> >> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
>> >> and key text.
>> >> ...
>> >> It is created at
>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mismatching_key_names
>> >> but page name is horrible. Ideas for a better one is welcome.
>> >>
>> >> Also, I only started it - help in expanding and improving it
>> >> is highly welcomed.
>> >
>> > These are no mismatches.
>> > Keys and values are in principle arbitrary sequences of alphanumeric
>> characters. By convention we try to make them mnemonic by using strings
>> that somehow help us remember the meaning of the string. By convention we
>> use British English words for keys and values, plus numbers, mainly for
>> values.
>> >
>> > This explanation needs to be placed prominently on the new page, to
>> avoid any doubt.
>>
>> Please no. That wiki page is a much better explanation than this "it's
>> only symbols".
>>
>> Keys and values are ways for us as human editors to communicate with
>> each other. Those are commonly called "words" - well, at least in
>> Canadian English, I don't know about British English.
>>
>> It is definitely worth explaining why some words as OSM editors use
>> them are different from words as the rest of the world (or a subset of
>> the world) might use them.
>>
>> --Jarek
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Evan Derickson
derickso...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.




Jan 24, 2020, 13:50 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> &&   Deleting a non-functioning fountain node, is discouraged
>> But in case of removed structure deletion
>> of node is encouraged.
>>
>
> There are some (I'm one of them) who would say that if the fountain is likely 
> to
> be remapped because there are many images of it on the web, then it is better
> to retain the node and apply a removed: lifecycle prefix to it (and possibly a
> note, explaining things).  Others will strongly disagree, saying that OSM
> doesn't map history and ignoring that this is actually a quality assurance
> mechanism.
>
Yes, it is acceptable and desirable as long as there is a real risk of mistaken 
remapping.

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes




Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:40 AM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
>> Reason for the lack of verifiability is that what an active volcano is
>> in almost all uses of this term does not depend on the current state of
>> the volcano but on its history - most commonly during the holocene (10k
>> years) or during historic times.
>>
>
> That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts
> damaged by a previous eruption.
>
But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors.

Similarly frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically verifiable 
quantity,
since determining it would require long-term observations 
which are not realistic for mappers to do.

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

Re: [Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)

2020-01-24 Thread Volker Schmidt

OK,
my wording was intentionally provoking. But this basic conceptual issue is
at the base of many unnecessary tagging modifications.
I refrained from adding the OSM version of the duck principle.
One of the items in the proposed page illustrates well why I think people
need to get the message that we only use words as codes, not as meaning.

We had for a long time waterway=canal and for the outline we used
water=riverbank (and we still mostly do use that combination). Perfectly
working, we did not care if we were mapping the bank of a river or the bank
of a canal. At some point someone came up with the idea that canal is not a
river hence a riverbank is not a canalbank and introduced water=canal for
the concept of  the canalbank.
(I am a bit exaggerating here the reason for the change was different - see
the thread "[Tagging] Canal banks")

My basic message is tags are made of key and value and everything is
codewords. We have build a whole structure into the codewords with several
levels of colons in order to make extracting things form the database
easier, but this is not part of the core structure of the database.

There is no mismatch between natural=water and water=canal if you
understand that all keys and values are codewords. Human readability is a
convenience, but is not reflected in the data structure at all.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 15:31, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> > Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
> >> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
> >> and key text.
> >> ...
> >> It is created at
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mismatching_key_names
> >> but page name is horrible. Ideas for a better one is welcome.
> >>
> >> Also, I only started it - help in expanding and improving it
> >> is highly welcomed.
> >
> > These are no mismatches.
> > Keys and values are in principle arbitrary sequences of alphanumeric
> characters. By convention we try to make them mnemonic by using strings
> that somehow help us remember the meaning of the string. By convention we
> use British English words for keys and values, plus numbers, mainly for
> values.
> >
> > This explanation needs to be placed prominently on the new page, to
> avoid any doubt.
>
> Please no. That wiki page is a much better explanation than this "it's
> only symbols".
>
> Keys and values are ways for us as human editors to communicate with
> each other. Those are commonly called "words" - well, at least in
> Canadian English, I don't know about British English.
>
> It is definitely worth explaining why some words as OSM editors use
> them are different from words as the rest of the world (or a subset of
> the world) might use them.
>
> --Jarek
>
> ___
> 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] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Jez Nicholson

..or follow the Wikidata:id and link out to another data source like
https://volcano.si.edu/ to avoid transient data in OSM

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, 15:24 Alessandro Sarretta, <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/01/20 15:52, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> > How to tag its recent activity, ie for touristic purposes?
>
> Maybe a last_eruption:date=* tag (with a documented source) could be
> enough do define recent activities?
>
> Ale
>
>
> ___
> 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] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Alessandro Sarretta


On 24/01/20 15:52, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:

How to tag its recent activity, ie for touristic purposes?


Maybe a last_eruption:date=* tag (with a documented source) could be 
enough do define recent activities?


Ale


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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> So "active" is ment in geological time... rather wide for OSM :-)

No, the tag does not have a consistent meaning, it simply means some 
mapper has at some point subjectively considered this feature to be an 
active volcano.

> How to tag its recent activity, ie for touristic purposes?

OSM in general does not map historic features or events.  You should map 
what is at present verifiable to observe.  If there are fumarolic 
activites, hot springs etc. you can map these using appropriate tags 
(geological=volcanic_fumarole, natural=hot_spring etc.).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Cascafico Giovanni

So "active" is ment in geological time... rather wide for OSM :-)

How to tag its recent activity, ie for touristic purposes?

Il ven 24 gen 2020, 14:40 Christoph Hormann  ha scritto:

> On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> >
> > Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active?
>
> That tag is practically non-verifiable and therefore does not really
> belong in OSM.  But since everyone is free to add any tags they want in
> OSM such tags of course exist.
>
> Reason for the lack of verifiability is that what an active volcano is
> in almost all uses of this term does not depend on the current state of
> the volcano but on its history - most commonly during the holocene (10k
> years) or during historic times.
>
>

Il 24 gen 2020 2:40 PM, "Christoph Hormann"  ha scritto:

On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
>
> Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active?

That tag is practically non-verifiable and therefore does not really
belong in OSM.  But since everyone is free to add any tags they want in
OSM such tags of course exist.

Reason for the lack of verifiability is that what an active volcano is
in almost all uses of this term does not depend on the current state of
the volcano but on its history - most commonly during the holocene (10k
years) or during historic times.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
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] Active volcanoes

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:40 AM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> Reason for the lack of verifiability is that what an active volcano is
> in almost all uses of this term does not depend on the current state of
> the volcano but on its history - most commonly during the holocene (10k
> years) or during historic times.

That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts
damaged by a previous eruption.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)

2020-01-24 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  ha scritto:
>> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
>> and key text.
>> ...
>> It is created at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mismatching_key_names
>> but page name is horrible. Ideas for a better one is welcome.
>>
>> Also, I only started it - help in expanding and improving it
>> is highly welcomed.
>
> These are no mismatches.
> Keys and values are in principle arbitrary sequences of alphanumeric 
> characters. By convention we try to make them mnemonic by using strings that 
> somehow help us remember the meaning of the string. By convention we use 
> British English words for keys and values, plus numbers, mainly for values.
>
> This explanation needs to be placed prominently on the new page, to avoid any 
> doubt.

Please no. That wiki page is a much better explanation than this "it's
only symbols".

Keys and values are ways for us as human editors to communicate with
each other. Those are commonly called "words" - well, at least in
Canadian English, I don't know about British English.

It is definitely worth explaining why some words as OSM editors use
them are different from words as the rest of the world (or a subset of
the world) might use them.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] a kind of name:XX-modern-not-used

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:59 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> I am against transforming OSM into an etymological dictionary. While 
> etymological research is of
> course valuable, such results are not easily verifiable for other users, and 
> overload the tagging of
> objects that have plenty of tags in current languages already.

I  think we have different readings of the original complaint. To me,
the issue appears to be rather that an armchair mapper paraphrases an
official name that contains a no-longer-current word, yielding a
result that doesn't match the signs.  If that's actually what's going
on, then it's Just Plain Wrong.  I think the poster wants a way to
flag, 'the archaeism is still in current use - do not paraphrase' as a
quality assurance measure, and if so, I'm all in favour. For
situations that I've thought to be at risk of being corrupted by
armchair mappers or bots with bad assumptions, (e.g., "Gravel Road"
where "Gravel" is a family name, or a private road actually named
"Four Wheel Drive"), I've simply resorted to a note=* to warn mappers.
(note="The 'Vly' in 'Vly Road' is a Middle Dutch word, not an
abbreviation of 'valley' - do not expand").

The other parallel situation I can think of near me is 'Lake George',
which in French can be either 'Lac George[s]' - a translation of the
current name, or 'Lac du Saint-Sacrement' (which is the name that the
French settlers gave it before the English conquered them). I've seen
all three spellings on maps, and 'Lac Georges' is the only one I
haven't seen on bilingual signage. Tagging old_name:fr="Lac du
Saint-Sacrement" pretty well covers that situation.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)

2020-01-24 Thread Volker Schmidt

These are no mismatches.
Keys and values are in principle arbitrary sequences of alphanumeric
characters. By convention we try to make them mnemonic by using strings
that somehow help us remember the meaning of the string. By convention we
use British English words for keys and values, plus numbers, mainly for
values.

This explanation needs to be placed prominently on the new page, to avoid
any doubt.



Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:

> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
> and key text.
>
> Especially among newbies interested in discussions.
>
> "why we use natural=water for man made canals?"
> "why we tag man made beaches as natural=?"
> "Lets migrate natural=water to landcover=water".
>
> So far I was basically ignoring this because it was not worth writing
> a full explanation every single time.
>
> This page is intended as something that can be linked when
> someone encounters such puzzling situation.
>
> Page that explains that
> (1) yes, this is confusing
> (2) why we ended in such situation
> (3) what are ideas for resolving this and why they are still not done
>
> would be useful for linking in such cases
>
> It is created at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mismatching_key_names
> but page name is horrible. Ideas for a better one is welcome.
>
> Also, I only started it - help in expanding and improving it
> is highly welcomed.
> ___
> 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] a kind of name:XX-modern-not-used

2020-01-24 Thread Tom Pfeifer

I am against transforming OSM into an etymological dictionary. While etymological research is of
course valuable, such results are not easily verifiable for other users, and overload the tagging of
objects that have plenty of tags in current languages already.

There are systems like wiktionary.org suitable for these details, which can be sufficiently linked
with wikidata references. Thus there is no reason to duplicate that in OSM.

tom

On 24.01.2020 06:43, Phake Nick wrote:
You can consider using BCP 47 extension T as language tag in OpenStreetMap follow BCP 47 practice.
The extension T is for denoting content that have been transformed from one language into another,
so if you write fr-t-frm then it would denote the content is transformed fron Middle French
(15th-17th century) to Modern French (with frm being the ISO 639 code for Middle French, and thus
you can write name:fr-t-frm=X into the object. You can read the BCP47 original document for more
information.

05:51，marc marc

Hello,

some words in the name of some street is not understood by some people.
these are often old notations, sometimes borrowed from another language
but used in the official language to name this street.
street sign have those "one-name-but-in-mixed-language" and only that.

a contributor spends time trying to find the meaning of these words and
replaces the name with a modern version, absent both from the ground and
from use, in favour of a name that is the one that could have been
written if this street had been created today.
it's a bit as if this contributor added to Big Ben name:fr="Grand Ben"
or "Nouveau York" for "New York"
it's obviously wrong. but how could we keep track of the meanings
of the words from the old days?
I thinking about a kind of tag name:fr-modern-not-used or a kind of
name:etymology but which does not inform a person but an object, a
building, a profession, ...

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Friday 24 January 2020, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
>
> Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active?

That tag is practically non-verifiable and therefore does not really 
belong in OSM.  But since everyone is free to add any tags they want in 
OSM such tags of course exist.

Reason for the lack of verifiability is that what an active volcano is 
in almost all uses of this term does not depend on the current state of 
the volcano but on its history - most commonly during the holocene (10k 
years) or during historic times.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

There is some documentation 
athttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dvolcano

Note that wiki is not binding and may be wrong.

Also, there are apparently multiple ways
to classify volcano activity

See for example https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_volcanoes


24 Jan 2020, 14:04 by cascaf...@gmail.com:

> vHello ML!
> this query [1] is supposed to display active volcanes. I made some
> research using Sentinel-2 browser, but it happens that most volcanoes
> doesn't have an infrared response [2].
>
> Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active?
>
>
> [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Q3E
> [2] http://bit.ly/30OIUKw
>
> ___
> 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] Active volcanoes

2020-01-24 Thread Cascafico Giovanni

vHello ML!
this query [1] is supposed to display active volcanes. I made some
research using Sentinel-2 browser, but it happens that most volcanoes
doesn't have an infrared response [2].

Which is the criteria to tag volcanoes as volcano:status=active?


[1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Q3E
[2] http://bit.ly/30OIUKw

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

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-24 Thread Paul Allen

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> &&   Deleting a non-functioning fountain node, is discouraged
> But in case of removed structure deletion
> of node is encouraged.
>

There are some (I'm one of them) who would say that if the fountain is
likely to
be remapped because there are many images of it on the web, then it is
better
to retain the node and apply a removed: lifecycle prefix to it (and
possibly a
note, explaining things).  Others will strongly disagree, saying that OSM
doesn't map history and ignoring that this is actually a quality assurance
mechanism.

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

[Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)

One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
and key text.

Especially among newbies interested in discussions.

"why we use natural=water for man made canals?"
"why we tag man made beaches as natural=?"
"Lets migrate natural=water to landcover=water".

So far I was basically ignoring this because it was not worth writing 
a full explanation every single time. 

This page is intended as something that can be linked when 
someone encounters such puzzling situation.

Page that explains that 
(1) yes, this is confusing
(2) why we ended in such situation 
(3) what are ideas for resolving this and why they are still not done

would be useful for linking in such cases

It is created at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mismatching_key_names
but page name is horrible. Ideas for a better one is welcome.

Also, I only started it - help in expanding and improving it
is highly welcomed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis

> So for pedestrians, you would add a node on the blue line where it crosses 
> the centerline of the sidewalk tagged highway=crossing, 
> crossing=?

yes (or combine the crossing for pedestrians and cyclists into one node)

and you can add a highway=give_way (or stop) near the node for the
kerb as well to indicate that you have to give way to the traffic on
the Bezuidenhoutseweg.

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

highway=give_way would not map the situation, just the priority. Maybe it's
just me, but I think highway=give_way is an unclear tag. Who gives way to
who, in what direction?

I think it is better to tag it as a type of crossing. Can be rendered, can
be routed.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 11:03 schreef Volker Schmidt :

>
>
>
> In Nederland, if traffic has to cross a sidewalk to get onto a road, it
>> must give way to all other traffic when leaving the sidewalk. In effect,
>> this cancels the priority to the right. rule.That makes it different from a
>> zebra crossing, which does give priority to pedestrians, but does not
>> cancel other priority rules.
>>
> This means in effect that here is a "give-way"  situation, just no sign.
> Map it as highway=give_way.
> The wiki states " The highway
> =give_way tag is used to
> map points at which a traffic sign or marking instructs traffic travelling
> ..."
> you have some kind of marking in the form of the crossing sidewalk.
> The only problem is that you may have to put a lot of these nodes on the
> map.
>
> In that context a question (my ignorance): are there any routers that take
> into account how often you have to give way (wait) when selecting the best
> route?
> ___
> 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] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.




23 Jan 2020, 19:14 by europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com:
> operation_status = XXX  - for fountains which are not operational on a 
> specific sighting
>
In such case I would add an OSM note
and ask for a resurvey.

And report issue to local government.
With this tag it is hard to guess
whatever it is permanently broken,
or is matter unsure about state.

Note that sometimes single survey
is enough to establish that object
is no longer active.
> disused:    --- when the observation or observations leads the mapper to 
> believe there is a good chance the fountain is no longer working on a 
> permanent basis
>
And when object itself is still present.
In case of demolished ones that are
not likely to be mistakenly remapped
deletion is clearly preferable.
> intermittent = yes - sometime the fountain is working, sometimes it is off 
> seasonal =    if it is obvious which season the fountain 
> will be operating and which season the fountain will be shut. 
> opening_hours = month range (e.g.  Apr-Oct) - to designate a specific month 
> range when the fountain is operational. 
>
+1
> &&   Deleting a non-functioning fountain node, is discouraged
>
But in case of removed structure deletion
of node is encouraged.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Volker Schmidt

In Nederland, if traffic has to cross a sidewalk to get onto a road, it
> must give way to all other traffic when leaving the sidewalk. In effect,
> this cancels the priority to the right. rule.That makes it different from a
> zebra crossing, which does give priority to pedestrians, but does not
> cancel other priority rules.
>
This means in effect that here is a "give-way"  situation, just no sign.
Map it as highway=give_way.
The wiki states " The highway
=give_way tag is used to
map points at which a traffic sign or marking instructs traffic travelling
..."
you have some kind of marking in the form of the crossing sidewalk.
The only problem is that you may have to put a lot of these nodes on the
map.

In that context a question (my ignorance): are there any routers that take
into account how often you have to give way (wait) when selecting the best
route?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

Same thing in Nederland.
Best,  Peter Elderson


Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> In Germany, this is how the beginning / end of living streets work:
>
> http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielstra%C3%9Fe-1.jpg
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Drosselweg.JPG
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> 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] a kind of name:XX-modern-not-used


23 Jan 2020, 22:49 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:
> a contributor spends time trying to find the meaning of these words and
> replaces the name with a modern version, absent both from the ground and> 
> from use
>
Why someone would do this?

Such edits should be reverted.

Is it a theoretical problem or is it
something that actually happens?

I know that some people used
not:name tag to record that name
appearing in some external resources
is a known mistake (for example bad
data in TIGER dataset).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

So for pedestrians, you would add a node on the blue line where it crosses
the centerline of the sidewalk tagged highway=crossing,
crossing=?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:48 schreef Marc Gemis :

> I made a quick sketch:
>
> https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Screenshots/Screenshots-1/i-w92ZnDZ/0/90e60837/X4/Bezuidenhoutseweg%20-%20Google%20Maps-X4.png
> Of course, this info is then only available for the cars following the
> blue road. Cycling navigation along de Bezuidenhoutseweg will not be
> able to take this info into account. If you want that, you will have
> to draw the cycleway as a separate OSM way.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
> > crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
> > cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
> > time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
> > follow crosses the road for the cars.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > m.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
> > >>
> > >> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
> > >> for crossing?
> > >> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
> > >
> > >
> > > (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways
> but with sidewalk=yes?
> > >
> > > Best, Peter Elderson
> > > ___
> > > 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

In Germany, this is how the beginning / end of living streets work:
http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielstra%C3%9Fe-1.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Drosselweg.JPG

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

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis

I made a quick sketch:
https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Screenshots/Screenshots-1/i-w92ZnDZ/0/90e60837/X4/Bezuidenhoutseweg%20-%20Google%20Maps-X4.png
Of course, this info is then only available for the cars following the
blue road. Cycling navigation along de Bezuidenhoutseweg will not be
able to take this info into account. If you want that, you will have
to draw the cycleway as a separate OSM way.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
> crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
> cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
> time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
> follow crosses the road for the cars.
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
> >>
> >> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
> >> for crossing?
> >> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
> >
> >
> > (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways but 
> > with sidewalk=yes?
> >
> > Best, Peter Elderson
> > ___
> > 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis

Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
follow crosses the road for the cars.

regards

m.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
>> for crossing?
>> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
>
>
> (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways but 
> with sidewalk=yes?
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway