Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> we end up with most POIs [e.g. shops] added as nodes, as it appears to be 
> currently the best compromise in terms of mapping efficiency, accuracy, 
> complexity and editability.

+1

> I know there are lots of building=yes with POI data added, but I would 
> discourage this because there really is no way to tell which of the 
> properties (e.g. name) belongs to the building and which to the business.

+1

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 4/20/20, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> On 19.04.20 20:33, Paul Allen wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Justin Tracey > > wrote:
>>
>> Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is
>> better, IME, are notable (historical) buildings that currently house
>> a business. More generally, if the tags of the building and business
>> would conflict (e.g., name), then it makes sense to keep them as
>> separate features.
>>
>>
>> If the building's name is still used as the house name, that's not a
>> problem. Otherwise old_name=* takes care of it.
>
> Not in the general case (the name may continue to be in use, but not as
> part of the address). And there are other tags which may warrant a
> distinction between the building and the business, such as start_date.
>
> I would say the cleanest way to solve this, where necessary, is by
> creating separate features for the business and the building. Separate
> features don't have to mean a node for the business, it can mean two
> polygons.
>
> Of course, that's more work than either of the two popular shortcuts, so
> these still have their place. But polygons for businesses work no matter
> whether there's multiple tenants or just one, and it even works for
> indoor maps and other micromapping use cases.
>
> Tobias
>
> ___
> 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] Points vs Polygons

[Tobias Knerr]

On 19.04.20 20:33, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Justin Tracey  > wrote:
> 
> Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is
> better, IME, are notable (historical) buildings that currently house
> a business. More generally, if the tags of the building and business
> would conflict (e.g., name), then it makes sense to keep them as
> separate features.
> 
> 
> If the building's name is still used as the house name, that's not a
> problem. Otherwise old_name=* takes care of it.

Not in the general case (the name may continue to be in use, but not as
part of the address). And there are other tags which may warrant a
distinction between the building and the business, such as start_date.

I would say the cleanest way to solve this, where necessary, is by
creating separate features for the business and the building. Separate
features don't have to mean a node for the business, it can mean two
polygons.

Of course, that's more work than either of the two popular shortcuts, so
these still have their place. But polygons for businesses work no matter
whether there's multiple tenants or just one, and it even works for
indoor maps and other micromapping use cases.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Apr 2020, at 20:29, Justin Tracey  wrote:
> 
> Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME, 
> are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More 
> generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict (e.g., 
> name), then it makes sense to keep them as separate features.


sure, using an area did not imply mixing business tags with buildings, even if 
the business occupies the whole footprint.

While you could redraw the same geometry over the building (not 100,0% accurate 
because buildings get drawn on their outline, while businesses would in theory 
be drawn at the inside, but actually not even with the established indoor 
tagging scheme you would draw wall widths), I find these troublesome to edit. 
The alternative are multipolygons where you reuse the building geometry as 
outer member (usually the only multipolygon member in these cases). They might 
seem overkill on the other hand, and make editing harder for inexperienced 
mappers.

So basically we end up with most pois added as nodes, as it appears to be 
currently the best compromise in terms of mapping efficiency, accuracy, 
complexity and editability.

I know there are lots of building=yes with poi data added, but I would 
discourage this because there really is no way to tell which of the properties 
(e.g. name) belongs to the building and which to the business.

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Tobias Knerr]

On 19.04.20 19:51, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> I have noticed an issue putting things like the address on large
> buildings. Sometimes software that generates routings (OsmAnd) doesn't
> handle it gracefully and routes you to the wrong place.

My preferred way to handle this is to tag a node of the building polygon
as entrance=yes or entrance=main to mark the location of the entrance.
This allows routing software to know where it should guide you.

(Whether any given routing software already supports this is a different
story, of course, but at over 2 million uses this is a thoroughly
established tagging practice.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Justin Tracey  wrote:

> Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME,
> are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More
> generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict (e.g.,
> name), then it makes sense to keep them as separate features.
>

If the building's name is still used as the house name, that's not a
problem.  Otherwise
old_name=* takes care of it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 18:53, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

Other than that, I generally agree with putting info on smaller
> one-tenant building outlines versus adding a separate node.
>

Disadvantage of node: you have to duplicate the address.  You need the
address on the business so Nominatim doesn't return multiple results in
the same general area that you cannot distinguish between.  But the
address includes the house number or name so you need the address
on that, too.  This goes against the principle "Don't repeat yourself."

Disadvantage of area (I've really seen people argue this): the shop is only
the part where customers go, not the storage areas or living space.  So
the shop should not be contiguous with the building.

There are no right answers, just answers of varying degrees of wrongness.

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Justin Tracey]

Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME,
are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More
generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict (e.g.,
name), then it makes sense to keep them as separate features.

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 4/19/20 12:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Generally, polygons are superior to nodes and should not be "converted"
> to nodes, while converting nodes to polygons seems [ad]vantageous.

I have noticed an issue putting things like the address on large
buildings. Sometimes software that generates routings (OsmAnd) doesn't
handle it gracefully and routes you to the wrong place.

Other than that, I generally agree with putting info on smaller
one-tenant building outlines versus adding a separate node.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

vantageous.


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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 19. Apr. 2020 um 17:53 Uhr schrieb Robert Castle <
castler...@gmail.com>:

> I noticed that some businesses are polygons whereas others are points
> within a polygon. I was wondering which way is correct.
>


both is correct, although they are not equal. With polygons, you also
convey information about size, shape and orientation, while with
nodes/points, you only give information about the position.

As adding a shape for every small business is a lot of work, and it doesn't
change much in practical terms because they are all more of less of the
"expected" size for a small business, many such objects are mapped only as
nodes. The bigger the thing gets, the more interesting it becomes to add it
as a polygon, usually.

Generally, polygons are superior to nodes and should not be "converted" to
nodes, while converting nodes to polygons seems vantageous.

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

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Clifford Snow]

Rob,
First welcome to OSM.

When adding businesses, I use the convention that if the building holds
multiple businesses, then each business is a separate node. If the building
only holds on business, then I typically add the business information to
the building polygon. Like a McDonalds fast food restaurant. However, there
is nothing wrong with using nodes even though it's the only business.

For those buildings that hold a number of businesses, adding addr:unit is
very helpful.

If you need more information let me know.

Best,
Clifford

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:52 AM Robert Castle  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm new to OSM and have been I've been making some edits on Main Street
> of my hometown. All the buildings seem to have been mapped, but many of the
> businesses are not mapped or have incomplete information, so I've been
> adding in the business names that aren't there and editing the ones that
> have incomplete info. I noticed that some businesses are polygons whereas
> others are points within a polygon. I was wondering which way is correct.
>
> Best,
> Rob
> ___
> 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

[Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Robert Castle]

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to OSM and have been I've been making some edits on Main Street of
my hometown. All the buildings seem to have been mapped, but many of the
businesses are not mapped or have incomplete information, so I've been
adding in the business names that aren't there and editing the ones that
have incomplete info. I noticed that some businesses are polygons whereas
others are points within a polygon. I was wondering which way is correct.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:urgent_care

[Ty S]

Voting has opened on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urgent_care

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

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

[Lukas-458]

Yes that's true, but then we need a clear definition of what is seen as "public_transport" and what's not, don't we? I think some mappers also use access=private already (I'm not sure whether that fits).

 

I think this proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Differentiation_for_routes_of_public_transport goes in a direction of that, but note it has nothing to do with aerialway=station.

 

--Lukas

 
 

Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. April 2020 um 13:12 Uhr
Von: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

I agree that a tag like "public_transportation=yes" would be a
sensible tag to add to a aerialway=station which is used as public
transit, and "public_transportation=no" could be useful for a
"railway=station" or "highway=bus_stop" which is not used for public
transit.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

___
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:locked

[Andrew Harvey]

Voting has opened for the locked tag proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:locked.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

[Andrew Harvey]

I've started a proposal
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/052174.html /
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb which
aims to take this discussion over to the next stage, if you everyone could
take a look at the new proposal and if discussion could happen on the new
thread I think that will help move this forward.

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 18:56, Phyks  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> A discussion in CyclOSM issue tracker [1] spotted that there exists
> around 3500 highway=cycleway around the world which have specific
> mountain bikes (MTB) tags. In particular, around 800 highway=cycleway
> around the world declare a mtb:scale greater than 2, which would make
> them impassable without a proper mountain bike. Such cycleways would not
> be passable with a regular city bike. One example of such a case is at [2].
>
> Looking at the wiki page [3],
> "the highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way for the use of cyclists"
> which does not mandate explicitly that a cycleway be accessible with any
> kind of bikes and should also cover dedicated paths for MTB. However,
> the documentation around cycleways and bike features is very oriented
> towards city cycling and there is no illustration about MTB-specific
> cycleways.
>
> So, is this considered a valid tagging or should it be represented by
> another highway class (path, track, etc)? If this is valid, I propose to
> add a statement in the wiki explicitly mentioning that cycleways can be
> restricted for specific kinds of bicycles, for future questions.
>
> Best,
>
> [1] https://github.com/cyclosm/cyclosm-cartocss-style/issues/208
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86978431#map=17/41.26426/-73.91907
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
>
> --
> Phyks
>
> ___
> 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] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree that a tag like "public_transportation=yes" would be a
sensible tag to add to a aerialway=station which is used as public
transit, and "public_transportation=no" could be useful for a
"railway=station" or "highway=bus_stop" which is not used for public
transit.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:path=mtb

[Andrew Harvey]

Please see the proposal for highway=path + path=mtb as way to map mountain
bike tracks at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb

This has come about after very extensive discussion on the tagging list at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/051864.html as
a way to formalise the results of that discussion.

I've tried to take in the feedback from the prior discussion and the result
is in my view most suitable way forward.

At the moment I'm looking for feedback and any help with the wording or
examples to the document before taking it to voting
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Apr 2020, at 10:53, Jo  wrote:
> 
> It only makes sense if the teleférico can be used all year around and is 
> useful for the whole public. If it's only there to get skiers up a mountain, 
> I don't think it's part of the public transport network.


I don’t agree that a public transport feature must be available all year long, 
saisonal features would be ok as well.
I also wouldn’t open the can of worms asking to whom something is “useful”, as 
this is depending on subjective judgement, rather the question should be by 
whom it is “usable”

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

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

[Jo]

It only makes sense if the teleférico can be used all year around and is
useful for the whole public. If it's only there to get skiers up a
mountain, I don't think it's part of the public transport network.

Jo

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 10:43 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 18. Apr 2020, at 23:13, Gegorian Hauser  wrote:
> >
> > I know that in the aerialway=station wiki site is nothing written about
> public_transport.
> > But there should be the description about when the public_transport
> tagging is allowed and when not
>
>
> for all kinds of stations, public_transport=yes/no could make some sense
>
>
> 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] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18. Apr 2020, at 23:13, Gegorian Hauser  wrote:
> 
> I know that in the aerialway=station wiki site is nothing written about 
> public_transport.
> But there should be the description about when the public_transport tagging 
> is allowed and when not


for all kinds of stations, public_transport=yes/no could make some sense


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a warehouse or distribution centre?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Apr 2020, at 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> and the landuse is
> landuse=industrial (+ industrial=distributor or industrial=warehouse)
> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:industrial


This page doesn’t seem to indicate that distribution and logistics should be 
tagged as industrial landuse. It rather states that warehouses in an industrial 
context should get the landuse=industrial tag. At least this was the outcome of 
previous discussions. IMHO, as long as we refrain from creating a specific tag, 
we will have this discussion come back.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a warehouse or distribution centre?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Apr 2020, at 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Do we need another tag like man_made=distribution_centre, or is
> landuse + building enough in this case?


Why would it depend on the case? The building tag is about buildings and the 
landuse tag about landuse, so if you are interested in (countable) features 
related to a function (e.g. a distribution centre or facility, you should use a 
distinct tag for it, like with everything.

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