[Tagging] Covered walkways?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Doing some mapping around one of the local schools & wondering about the
best way to map covered walkways?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.06022/153.42615

A lot of skinny roofs, with highway=footway + covered=yes drawn under them,
or simply just footway + covered, which would indicate there is a roof
there?

Is either "better"?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jack Armstrong]

>From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>>If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.Agreed. There is no need to consult with other users if something is clearly incorrect and needs to be changed. If a four-way intersection is changed into a traffic circle, I will change it. I won't ask ask previous editors about something that only existed in the past. I will update the map to reflect the current situation. There's no need to keep the old intersection and the new roundabout on the map in the same place.If old, industrial buildings have been torn down completely and new apartment buildings have been built on the site, if there is absolutely nothing left of the old buildings, I will remove the non-existent buildings from OSM and replace them with the new construction. It's not necessary to consult with other users if I'm certain my edits are correct.If a tree has been removed to make way for a parking lot, I will remove the tree and replace it with a parking lot. There is no need to consult with anyone nor is there any need to keep the old tree in the middle of a new parking lot. The tree no longer exists.- Jack Armstrong(chachafish)

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 2/6/20 11:52 am, Phake Nick wrote:



在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> 寫道：


On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible
> objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some
> pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have
> documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing
makes
> sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some
> end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the
length of
> mapping them, should find space in OSM.
> In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from
> the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not
> correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all
> its partsmakes sense.


Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories,
shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical)
information
in OSM.

The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where
there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.


Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain 
visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop, road) 
have been made on top of their original site.


In the case I am thinking of it is not one house, one factory, one shop, 
one road ... there are many. There is no sign left in this area. Gone. 
Totally vanished.



So that cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should 
be removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each 
individual cases.


> Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without
> consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.



Disagree.

Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the
author or
following editors.

If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing
editors but
where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.

If you are not sure of the use or validity of something then it would 
also be a good idea to ask those who might know about it.



How much time do you think I should spend searching for these people who 
might know of it? And then once found how much time should I spend 
trying to contact them?



Think about what you are asking an unpaid mapper to do?

I would think contacting the author and/or past editors of the item in 
OSM is enough.



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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：

> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible
> > objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some
> > pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have
> > documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes
> > sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some
> > end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of
> > mapping them, should find space in OSM.
> > In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from
> > the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not
> > correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all
> > its partsmakes sense.
>
>
> Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories,
> shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical) information
> in OSM.
>
> The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where
> there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
>

Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain visible
even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop, road) have been made
on top of their original site. So that cabnot be used as a criteria to
determine whether that should be removed or not although the exact
situation varies a lot in each individual cases.

> Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without
> > consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.
>
>
>
> Disagree.
>
> Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the author or
> following editors.
>
> If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but
> where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.
>
If you are not sure of the use or validity of something then it would also
be a good idea to ask those who might know about it.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

[Warin]

On 29/5/20 8:01 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 28, 2020, 23:54 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

"treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly
problematic to OSM tagging.

Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland 
(landuse=farmland) or

residential (landuse=residential).

Yes, the same area may be tree covered and residential at the same time.

Yes, "tree-covered area" meaning for landuse=forest mismatches strict 
meanning

of bot landuse and forest.


I differ.


I would use natural=wood for the tree coverage.

Then there is no conflict with a landuse tag.

And natural=wood does mean tree covered ... and the key natural 
incorporates 'non natural' i.e things altered or managed by man.



The key landuse should be to used describe the primary use of land by 
humans, not the land cover but it's use.


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible 
objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some 
pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have 
documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes 
sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some 
end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of 
mapping them, should find space in OSM.
In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from 
the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not 
correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all 
its partsmakes sense.



Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories, 
shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical) information 
in OSM.


The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where 
there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.



Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without 
consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.




Disagree.

Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the author or 
following editors.


If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but 
where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.



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

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:50 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> I don't map special-purpose administrative districts, of which New
> York has a whole menagerie. I don't object if others do, but don't try
> to fit them into the boundary=administrative hierarchy.  They don't
> go. In New York, the admin_levels are as tabulated on the Wiki: 2=US
> 4=NY 5=New York City (don't ask!) 6=county
> *7=city, town, Indian Reservation* 8=village, hamlet (outside cities),
> ward, district,
> precinct, community board (in cities). There are only a few ways in
> which this scheme breaks hierarchy (New York City, one other city that
> has annexed across a county line, a chartered city that has in
> practice reverted to being a village, and about 15% of villages are in
> two or more towns.). If things like school, library, police, fire,
> water, sewer, or sanitation districts were to be included, the
> hierarchy would be broken all over the place. And that only scratches
> the surface of special-purpose administrative districts. As I said, go
> ahead and map them, but don't try to make admin_level fit.
>
>
This is a little off topic for the discussion on administrative boundaries
but...
Indian reservations boundaries should be mapped as
boundary=aboriginal_lands instead of an admin level. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands

I've added a number of reservations, mostly in my state of Washington. I
suspect there are a good number of unmapped reservations in the US.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@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] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-06-01 15:05, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:49 AM Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which case 
>> they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here?
> 
> Some do. The only one of New York's that crosses the state line is
> Akwesasne, which is not recognized as a unified entity by any
> government but its own. (The Federal government calls the portion in
> New York the 'Saint Regis Indian Reservation'.) The hierarchical point
> is that every point in the state is in exactly one City, Town or
> Indian Reservation and no City or Town claims an Indian Reservation as
> part of its domain.  No Town crosses a county line, and the instances
> where a City or Indian Reservation does can be counted on the fingers
> of one hand.

I just looked on Wikipedia, and 24 out of 326 Indian Reservations cross
state boundaries. Of those, most are split between 2 states, but there
are four reservations that bridge three states. 

Wikipedia also says: "An Indian reservation is a legal designation for
an area of land managed [1] by a federally recognized Indian tribe [2]
under the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs [3] rather than the state
governments of the United States [4] in which they are physically
located" which supports my position that they are not part of the normal
administrative hierarchy of USA-state-county-city/town where each entity
at a lower level is part of exactly one entity at higher levels. 

In your example (St Regis) it seems Akwesasne actually crosses the
national boundary into Canada as well! 

  

Links:
--
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_governments_of_the_United_States___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:49 AM Colin Smale  wrote:
> IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which case 
> they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here?

Some do. The only one of New York's that crosses the state line is
Akwesasne, which is not recognized as a unified entity by any
government but its own. (The Federal government calls the portion in
New York the 'Saint Regis Indian Reservation'.) The hierarchical point
is that every point in the state is in exactly one City, Town or
Indian Reservation and no City or Town claims an Indian Reservation as
part of its domain.  No Town crosses a county line, and the instances
where a City or Indian Reservation does can be counted on the fingers
of one hand.


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

Thanks, I will have a go. Probably it's not that hard.

Best,  Peter Elderson


Op ma 1 jun. 2020 om 11:49 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
>
>
> Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how
> to do that...).
>
> See
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
>
> and a real example:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Lines_management=1994346=1994343
>
> if you have problems - which part of instructions is unclear?
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com:

>
> Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how to 
> do that...).
>
See

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting

and a real example: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Lines_management=1994346=1994343

if you have problems - which part of instructions is unclear?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-06-01 02:49, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> I don't map special-purpose administrative districts, of which New
> York has a whole menagerie. I don't object if others do, but don't try
> to fit them into the boundary=administrative hierarchy.  They don't
> go. In New York, the admin_levels are as tabulated on the Wiki: 2=US
> 4=NY 5=New York City (don't ask!) 6=county 7=city, town, Indian
> Reservation

IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which
case they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-06-01 08:14, Kovoschiz wrote:

>> would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g.
> `boundary=administrative + administrative=police`
> 
> New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed
> for these purposes if warranted. Don't adopt `boundary=administrative` for
> these other uses.

+1 otherwise it devalues the semantics of "administrative" if it is used
for a wide variety of things.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how
to do that...).

I would like to invite any one who still has comments or doubts which might
cause a no or abstain vote, to comment here or on the talk page.

If anything serious arises, I would rather postpone the vote and discuss a
solution first, than see the issue as comment in a no or abstain vote!

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 13:33 schreef Peter Elderson :

> Please review and comment on this proposal:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
>
>
> Definition: specification of role values for members of a recreational
> route relation
>
> The status has changed to proposed as of today
>
> Comments can be placed on the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.
>
> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Kovoschiz]

>would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g.
`boundary=administrative + administrative=police`

New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed
for these purposes if warranted. Don't adopt `boundary=administrative` for
these other uses. 


Martin Machyna wrote
> Just to add to this. I agree that there needs to be a cut off. I would
> suggest that as long as the area has clearly defined boundaries (in
> accessible official documents) and it was defined or is actively used by
> country's administrative officials or agencies then that would constitute
> for accepting it.
> 
> Since these areas often don't fall into exact hierarchy they would not
> have
> `admin_level=*` tag, but would instead be distinguished by additional tags
> e.g. `boundary=administrative + administrative=police`.
> The advantage of this would be that all the areas used for administration
> would be in one place instead of arbitrary split into many individual
> tags.
> And would also preserve consistency, as some countries are already using
> statistical and cadastral regions under administrative tagging.
> 
> "_Administrative boundaries are intended for the general public's everyday
>> use, not for specialists._"
> 
> I don't think that OSM is only for general public and not for specialists.
> In fact, it is already used by specialist cartography companies and
> startups. And OSM could even be used by state administrations in the
> future
> as well. (Or whoever wants to work with government data visualization)
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:39, Colin Smale 
> >
>  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging;> wrote:
>> I would suggest a filter that the area needs to be formally defined,
>> possibly by some level of government. I agree that whether or not there
>> is any active form of local government is not a prerequisite. But we
>> need to draw the line somewhere If a group of neighbours got
>> together and said "our area is called Homesville" would that qualify? If
>> a company with a huge plant divided the campus into North, South, East
>> and West with Regional Managers, it is using the areas for
>> "administrative purposes" but I would not expect this to be reflected in
>> OSM as admin boundaries. As with everything in OSM it should be
>> "independently verifiable" which
>> implies there should be some publicly accessible single source of truth,
>> i.e. the definition of the area is written down somewhere that Joe
>> Bloggs or I could access freely. In the UK there are multiple hierarchies
>> of geographic areas, for widely
>> differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily)
>> share borders. For example Police Regions are based on traditional
>> counties (which are not "administrative") with lots of anomalies. They
>> are subdivided into districts. Calling these areas
>> "boundary=administrative" instead of "boundary=police" would cause
>> confusion! The use of admin_level=* allows a proper hierarchy to be
>> defined, but is
>> currently only used with boundary=administrative. If this concept is
>> extended into (for example) boundary=police, you enable a parallel
>> hierarchy, which reflects real life much better and keeps things clearer
>> for both mapper and user.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list

> Tagging@

> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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