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

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:

> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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. 
> 
> Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed
> over former railway and this section of railway remains somehow
> mappable in OSM?
> 
> With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> 
> But entire factory?

It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage rental
facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and about forty
city blocks of other things?

https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 10:52, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren  wrote:
>>> Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness 
>>> paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?

Certainly you can use highway=not_an_easy_walk (or a better
alternative). There's a post upthread (or in a similar thread
somewhere?) about an editor in a mountainous area explicitly changing
tagging away from highway=path to try to avoid casual hikers getting
in situations where they need rescue. You can use any tags you like in
OSM. The hard part is if you want to get consensus on what tags to
recommend.

>> No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock of 
>> "path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add 
>> additional confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers and 
>> routers
>>
>>> Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that 
>>> will tell what this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?
>
>> We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the 
>> necessary tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in use.and we 
>> need to reamin backaward compatible in view of the enourmous numbers). What 
>> we can do and need to do is to improve the description of the various 
>> existing tagging options in the wiki (without touching their definition)
>
> My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t change 
> any tagging”. I don’t find that helpful.

I find that realistic. Consider two big "let's fix up tagging for
this" initiatives in OSM: public_transport=* and healthcare=*.
Healthcare is only recently getting accepted and there is no consensus
to expand its use (see healthcare=pharmacy getting explicitly
_deprecated_), and public_transport=* is still not rendered on
osm-carto after almost a decade.

You can change tagging. But you can't force the rest of the OSM
ecosystem to start using your new tags.


--Jarek

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

> "this IS residential landuse."  (Not COULD BE, but IS).  Yes, this land might 
> be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could still build a patio 
> and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my residential 
> land and I am allowed to do that, meaning it has residential use, even if it 
> is "unimproved" presently.  
>
It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.

> These facts do add to the difficulty:  OSM doesn't wish to appear to be 
> removing property rights from residential landowners (by diminishing 
> landuse=residential areas)
>
Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect property rights and 
may remove them?
That is ridiculous.

>  but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do remain in a 
> natural state, while distinctly and presently "having" residential landuse.  
>
For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a clearly incorrect 
mapping.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 2, 2020, 21:37 by f...@zz.de:

>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:05:47PM +0200, Rafael Avila Coya wrote:
>
>> Hi, all:
>>
>> Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it)
>> becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How would
>> you better map this? Some possible approaches:
>>
>> 1. Having the area of all the scrub as natural=scrub, and the area that
>> becomes wet in its interior as natural=wetland + seasonal=yes (or
>> seasonal=wet_season)
>>
>> 2. Having a natural=scrub for the whole area, and for the wetland area
>> temporary:natural=wetland @ (May-Oct) or temporary:natural=wetland @
>> (wet_season)
>>
>> 3. Using a relation, with the tag natural=scrub, and the inner way with the
>> tags natural=scrub + temporary:natural=wetland @ (...)
>>
>
> For me overlapping natural or landuses are broken. An area can either
> be a natural=wood or a landuse=farmland. You cant include the same
> area in two types of usages or naturals.
>
You can.
You can have silvopasture ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silvopasture.jpg

You can have forested military base with wetland (real case).

You can probably find military base (landuse=military) with landuse=farmland.

There are residential areas in forests, there are industrial zones in military 
bases,
there are railway areas in military bases.

etc etc

You will have overlapping areas or stuff like
landuse=military_industrial_area_under_tree_cover_with_intermittent_wetland
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Rafael,

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:05:47PM +0200, Rafael Avila Coya wrote:
> Hi, all:
> 
> Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it)
> becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How would
> you better map this? Some possible approaches:
> 
> 1. Having the area of all the scrub as natural=scrub, and the area that
> becomes wet in its interior as natural=wetland + seasonal=yes (or
> seasonal=wet_season)
> 
> 2. Having a natural=scrub for the whole area, and for the wetland area
> temporary:natural=wetland @ (May-Oct) or temporary:natural=wetland @
> (wet_season)
> 
> 3. Using a relation, with the tag natural=scrub, and the inner way with the
> tags natural=scrub + temporary:natural=wetland @ (...)

For me overlapping natural or landuses are broken. An area can either
be a natural=wood or a landuse=farmland. You cant include the same
area in two types of usages or naturals.

So in any case you need a MP relation.

But that might just be me. I have created a validation layer for parts
of Germany for this.

In your specific case - Its a wetland which IMHO implies that it may
fall dry sometimes. 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren  > wrote:
> I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag 
> according to function.   A trail/path can have many users/functions, but it's 
> still a dirt path.
> 
> Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness 
> paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?
> No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock of 
> "path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add additional 
> confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers and routers
> Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that 
> will tell what this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?
> We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the necessary 
> tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in use.and we need to 
> reamin backaward compatible in view of the enourmous numbers). What we can do 
> and need to do is to improve the description of the various existing tagging 
> options in the wiki (without touching their definition)

My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t change any 
tagging”. I don’t find that helpful.

> I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the google 
> docs doc.
> 
> Ok, I'll email those who have expressed interest in following or 
> participating in the discussion. Suggestions and comments can also be done in 
> the Google Doc.
> 
> As said before I would prefer that his discussion remain on one of the tools 
> of the OSM community, mainly for documenting the discussion.

I agree with you on this. Especially as I’ve gone to fairly extreme measures to 
reduce my exposure to Google.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

[Joseph Eisenberg]

What sort of vegetation is found in the temporary wetland area?

If it's bushes and shrubs which are identical to the surrounding area, then
it's ok to map the whole area as natural=scrub, and then map the smaller
natural=wetland area inside, with the addition of intermittent=yes or
seasonal=yes to describe that the wetland area is only part of the year.

However, if the wetland has different vegetation, it might be a bog, fen,
marsh etc, then you should use wetland=bog/fen/marsh as appropriate, and
exclude the wetland area from the natural=scrub area.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:08 AM Rafael Avila Coya 
wrote:

> Hi, all:
>
> Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it)
> becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How
> would you better map this? Some possible approaches:
>
> 1. Having the area of all the scrub as natural=scrub, and the area that
> becomes wet in its interior as natural=wetland + seasonal=yes (or
> seasonal=wet_season)
>
> 2. Having a natural=scrub for the whole area, and for the wetland area
> temporary:natural=wetland @ (May-Oct) or temporary:natural=wetland @
> (wet_season)
>
> 3. Using a relation, with the tag natural=scrub, and the inner way with
> the tags natural=scrub + temporary:natural=wetland @ (...)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rafael.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 16:54, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t
> change any tagging”. I don’t find that helpful.
>

I fear your translation is correct.

At least for tags as heavily used as highway=path and highway=track.
Deprecating anything is nearly impossible due to the immense amount of work
involved.
You cannot undo old tagging, you have to carry it with you and any new
tagging you introduce is making life even more complicated, because you
have to support both old and new.
Maybe due to my way of inserting data, often along cycle routes or recorded
GPX tracks  (and Mapillary photos) I encounter so many cases were JOSM
reminds me of deprecated tagging in the data I downloaded, but data that I
have not touched at all. I keep ignoring these messages because I have no
knowledge of the situation on the ground, but the sheer number of these
warning messages is indicating that this approach of introducing new
tagging and then leaving to others the task of updating the old tagging, is
basically wrong.
If we feel that we need to introduce additional tagging you may consider
this, but changing existing tagging (or re-defining existing tagging, which
amounts to the same thing) is near to impossible.
In this specific discussion we may have an underlying problem (or advantage
?): In my part of the world quite a lot of minor highways (tracks, paths,
cycleways, footways) is already mapped (I would assume that in Germany this
even more the case), so any tag or wiki changes would cause a lot of work.
If you are in an area where the minor viability is still less well covered
in OSM, you may consider local tagging definitions which differ from the
ones used in other parts of the world, and try to control who is tagging in
"your" area (would be difficult here as we have many visiting mappers form
the northern side of the Alps)

I recently created a cycling map of my city. Bicycle tagging has already
gone through several major redefinitions of tagging and I had to take into
account all the different generations of tagging people have applied here.
And that is a local map and also it left out the surface (paved vs
unpaved). I know what we are talking about - don't repeat those mistakes.





Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Overlapping naturals

[Rafael Avila Coya]

Hi, all:

Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it) 
becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How 
would you better map this? Some possible approaches:


1. Having the area of all the scrub as natural=scrub, and the area that 
becomes wet in its interior as natural=wetland + seasonal=yes (or 
seasonal=wet_season)


2. Having a natural=scrub for the whole area, and for the wetland area 
temporary:natural=wetland @ (May-Oct) or temporary:natural=wetland @ 
(wet_season)


3. Using a relation, with the tag natural=scrub, and the inner way with 
the tags natural=scrub + temporary:natural=wetland @ (...)


Cheers,

Rafael.


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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/06/2020 13:48, Volker Schmidt wrote:



On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren > wrote:


I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the
desire to tag according to function.   A trail/path can have
many users/functions, but it's still a dirt path.


Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness
paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?

No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock 
of "path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add 
additional confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers 
and routers


Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical
characteristics that will tell what this path|footway|cycleway
actually looks like?

We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the 
necessary tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in 
use.and we need to reamin backaward compatible in view of the 
enourmous numbers). What we can do and need to do is to improve the 
description of the various existing tagging options in the wiki 
(without touching their definition)


To be honest, I'd expect that most OSM contributors (new and old) don't 
look at the wiki at all.  If you want to influence how people tag 
things, it'd be more effective to try and ensure that editor presets in 
the commonly-used editors match whatever the community consensus is 
(although after 116 messages about this last month on the tagging list, 
I'm not sure that there is a consensus about even what the problem is).


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Volker Schmidt]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag
>> according to function.   A trail/path can have many users/functions, but
>> it's still a dirt path.
>>
>
> Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness
> paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?
>
No you cannot inroduce another main tag, because of the existing stock of
"path" 8.7 million and "track".(18.7 million). This would only add
additional confusion with mappers and an enormous burden on renderers and
routers

> Can we somehow "enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that
> will tell what this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?
>
We have no way to "enforce" anything in OSM. But, as we do have the
necessary tags (maybe to many different ones, but they all are in use.and
we need to reamin backaward compatible in view of the enourmous numbers).
What we can do and need to do is to improve the description of the various
existing tagging options in the wiki (without touching their definition)

Don't forget dirt bikes & ATV's (<50 inchs, 127 cm) in this assessment.
>> Many trails are open to, and used by, everyone including motor vehicles.
>> Perhaps this just means that footway & cycleway are non-motorized, and path
>> could be.
>>
> We do have a more or less agreed set of default access restrictions tables
.
We cannot retrospectively change them.. For most countries this sets the
default access for "path" to foot|bicycle|horse (in the US also "moped").
Again these default values have been there for a while, hence many millions
of paths and tracks are tagged on that base.

One thing you can do for future tagging is to convince the JOSM and iD
people to create more specific presets (say an ATV preset which would check
that there is a width tag on the path with a value of at least 127cm, and
also set the access to motor_vehicle=yes (I don't know if we do already
have an ATV vehicle category)

>
> Yeah, something like "and possibly smaller motor vehicles" should be
> added. In Sweden, for example, cycleways are normally open for smaller
> mopeds. "...primarily intended for non-motorized vehicles and possibly
> smaller motor vehicles".
>
Tere is so far no table on the above wiki page for Sweden. If moped=yes
that is the default situation on cycleways in Sweden, it would be good idea
to add a new table for > shouldn't tag for a lousy renderer, but we should tag for the user &
>> sometimes the rules laid down are wrong.
>>
> We do not have laid down rules, and we cannot create any. The wiki
documents what mappers do,
I would say we should not define things that make life even more complex to
people who design renderers and routers, to mappers, and , last but not
least keep the end user in mind.

>
>> I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the
>> google docs doc.
>>
>
> Ok, I'll email those who have expressed interest in following or
> participating in the discussion. Suggestions and comments can also be done
> in the Google Doc.
>

As said before I would prefer that his discussion remain on one of the
tools of the OSM community, mainly for documenting the discussion.

Volker


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I know the
> completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall ex-railway.
>

There are three ex-railways in my area (possibly more).  Even though the
rail part of those railways has mostly been removed, the way part of those
railways is still mostly in evidence.  Apart from embankments, cuttings,
bridges
and tunnels there are the green corridors - either tree-lined hedges or
trails cut
through woods. Some sections have been repurposed as footpaths and/or cycle
paths.  A few short sections have been resurrected as heritage railways.
The places
where all traces have been removed and build over are very few and far
between.

I could delete those tiny sections of ex-railway that somebody spent time
mapping, but then it loses the coherence that aids understanding (unless I
shove the pieces into some sort of relation).

I understand the perspective of the purists, and one day a purist may come
along and remove sections where all traces have gone.  But I have other
things
I could be mapping so I won't bother doing it myself.

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 2, 2020, 13:11 by g...@lexort.com:

> First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or
> are intended to align with property boundaries.
>
I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary
that is partially landuse=residential and partially landuse=industrial/farmland


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

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

[Volker Schmidt]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
I am asking even less work, I am asking to leave an object that is tagged
as razed railway in the database and not remove it without contacting the
mapper who inserted it.

Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I know the
completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall ex-railway.

The same argument applies also to ex-roads. A thing which springs to mind
would be tagging the ex-Route 66, of which huge stretches still exist in
different forms. (I rode it on bicycle) This would be a very interesting
and pertinent job in OSM.

Volker


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Greg Troxel]

stevea  writes:

> As I mentioned to Doug I exchanged a couple of emails with
> user:jeisenberg (a principal contributor to Carto) about what was
> going on with some examples of this, and Mr. Eisenberg explained to me
> (in short) that it is a complicated ordering (or re-ordering) of
> layers issue, both Doug and I continue to scratch our heads about what
> "best practice" might be here.  (For "heavily wooded residential"
> polygons, which are frequent in Northern California).  While Doug and
> I both tend towards the preference of the "superimposed look," it is
> not always simple to achieve, due to complexities in the renderer and
> data/tagging dependencies.  And, Doug and I are certainly aware of
> "don't code for the renderer."  However, given that Doug and I are
> fairly certain that others have noticed this, but aren't certain that
> others know what best to do (we don't, either), we ask the wider
> community "what do you think?" and "What are best practices here?"

Agreed this is really hard.

First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or
are intended to align with property boundaries.  I'm also going to
assume that natural=wood aligns with the actual location of trees, which
is (in mass) almost always not aligned with property boundaries.  I have
thought it an error to have natural=wood tagged on a polygon that shows
conservation land, as the adjacent non-conservation land almost always
similarly has trees (around me).

I would suggest that perhaps a "this land has some trees" landcover tag
(cover != use, strongly agreed) may make sense.  I am not sure you are
talking about this, or not.   I find natural=wood to imply that the land
has none to very little built structures, mostly trees, and the usual
understory plants.   I would definitely not want to use this tag on an
landuse=residential area with houses, but I might use it on the rear
parts of a housing area that are basically trees.   I also would not
want to stop at the subdivision line.

The basic problem here is that it's pretty straightforward to render a
map that primarily shows landuse, and it's pretty straightforward to
render a map tha primarily shows landcover.  What carto does, and what a
lot of people want, is a way to show both of them.

I would suggest that if tagging heroics are needed there is something
suboptimal in the renderer.  I think renderers probably need fancier
code to choose which of landuse/landcover to emphasisize depending on
local scale.  Or a deconfliction of symbology.

To have a way forward, I think we need a coherent design for a style
(not code, but an articulation of how it ought to work, first) that uses
some kind of symbology for landuse and some other kind for landcover.
I naively lean to solid fill, tending to lighter shades, for landuse,
and stipple patterns for landcover.  I think this is what you are suggesting.

It is interesting to think about the 80s USGS topo maps, and surely also
interesting to look at other traditional maps for inspiration.  The USGS
ones were primarily land cover and very little landuse.   But they did
have a gray "house omission tint" in built-up areas, which I'd say is
"this area has many buildings" and is sort of landcover, even though
it's a proxy for landuse.

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com:

>
>
> 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.
>

Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed over 
former railway
and this section of railway remains somehow mappable in OSM?

With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I can also 
imagine special cases of
this remaining true.

But entire factory?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Covered walkways?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 2, 2020, 07:34 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> 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"?
>
First one is more complete and explains better what is happening,
though second is perfectly acceptable.

In case of area getting fully mapped it will end with the
building=rood areas + footways with covered tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Covered walkways?

[Volker Schmidt]

Simple mapping: covered=yes
Elaborate mapping: building=roof; layer=1 (useful if the geometry matters,
e.g. roof wider than footpath)

Il mar 2 giu 2020, 07:36 Graeme Fitzpatrick  ha
scritto:

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

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Daniel Westergren]

>
> I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag
> according to function.   A trail/path can have many users/functions, but
> it's still a dirt path.
>

Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness
paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag? Can we somehow
"enforce" additional tags for physical characteristics that will tell what
this path|footway|cycleway actually looks like?



> Don't forget dirt bikes & ATV's (<50 inchs, 127 cm) in this assessment.
> Many trails are open to, and used by, everyone including motor vehicles.
> Perhaps this just means that footway & cycleway are non-motorized, and path
> could be.
>

Yeah, something like "and possibly smaller motor vehicles" should be added.
In Sweden, for example, cycleways are normally open for smaller mopeds.
"...primarily intended for non-motorized vehicles and possibly smaller
motor vehicles".



> The sermon that keeps getting repeated is don't tag for the renderer.   We
> shouldn't tag for a lousy renderer, but we should tag for the user &
> sometimes the rules laid down are wrong.
>
> I'm OK with taking this off this list & I can add my comments to the
> google docs doc.
>

Ok, I'll email those who have expressed interest in following or
participating in the discussion. Suggestions and comments can also be done
in the Google Doc.

/Daniel



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