Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
>> access=no
>> access:conditional=yes @ (above water)
>
> Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to 
> use opening hours?
> opening_hours= "above water" ???

:conditional is widely used for mapping:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=conditional

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 15:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
>>   cycleway route is verifiable, but route took by army is not)
>
> Quite a few motor roads in the UK follow those "unverifiable" routes.  Some
> are even named after those routes.  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watling_Street

Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 9/6/20 12:10 pm, Jack Armstrong wrote:


On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:


The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are
gone, no longer here, vanished.



At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether 
a thing was a dead parrot or not ;)


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp




I, for one, have been drawing on that. If only for my own amusement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 8/6/20 10:16 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




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.



I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for;
shade, to sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think
about things. People park their cars, caravans and boats under them.

They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my residence.

If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will
grass and flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped
as residential landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous.



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.



Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that
does not mean they are not parks because of the land cover.

I would contend similar consideration by held for residential
landuse.

Yes, landuse=residential may include areas with tree, I fully agree here.

But "portions of these areas do remain in a natural state" with 
residential status limited
solely to legal status (land ownership, legal right to build something 
there and start using

this land as landuse=residential) cases seem quite dubious to me.



As far as I know some of the trees are 'natural' on my place... I still 
use them.


How do you know that the 'residential status' is limited to the legal 
and not additionally used for the personal enjoyment of the people 
residing there?




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


Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 10:33, Cornelis > wrote:



With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey
as normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls
dry roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may
be resolved with correct/additional tags? After reading the
discussion I think at least three tags should be added:

Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a
conflict with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?


They are not mutually exclusive.  If it is a tourist attraction then 
it could

also have tourism=attraction.

• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far
as i can tell after reading the wiki article.
• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for
other things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?


Neither seem appropriate to me.  However, what you should have is 
access=no
to prevent routers from including it in walking routes. What you could 
do, to

show it is occasionally usable (if it is), is something like:

    access=no
    access:conditional=yes @ (above water)



I would keep seasonal but make it more specific

seasonal=autumn

Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be 
better to use opening hours?


opening_hours= "above water" ???


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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Jack Armstrong

  

  
  
On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt
  wrote:



The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are
  gone, no longer here, vanished. 
  

At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether a thing was a dead parrot or not ;)https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp

___
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

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 9/6/20 12:15 am, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:



Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com :


The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as
a hazard.


railway=abandoned
hazard=tagging_discussions


+1


+1

"Mostly harmless but infuriating" ?

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Warin, Jack,

your comments are really off my main point.
We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different 
opinions on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in 
OSM. In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page 
gets completely rewritten by one of the participants in the thread 
explicitly stating that razed railways should be /removed/ from OSM.

This is basically against good practice in OSM.
In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled 
railways, the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is 
clearly wrong. Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and 
cycle routes that retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong 
with adding railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the 
road or the cycle route.


Railway installations are major sites present in our environment,



The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone, 
no longer here, vanished.


The one I am thinking of has visible things at one end and a few bits 
elsewhere, those I would leave on OSM as they 'exist'.


But to map it where there is nothing left.. to me that is deceptive. The 
other mapper has extended one of the things I left mapped so that an 
embankment runs over roads, through car-parks, a building and a playing 
field. That does not exist now, it may have decades ago ... but not 
today and not for quite a few years.



and there is no good reason to remove them from the map, whether they 
are actively used or only indirectly "visible".

Just two other observations to put this in context:
We have plenty of underground water courses, oil or gas pipelines 
where only few objects on the surface indicate their underground 
existence - no-one would object to having them in the map data, 
including the underground parts.


Agreed - because they exist. I know there is an underground railway near 
me because I use it, it is not viable 'on the ground'. There is a 
drainage channel near me that I can see as entry and exit places .. its 
precise route I don't know so I use the est sources to estimate its 
route. I do my best to map things that exist. I don't think OSM is the 
place for things that no longer exist in any physical way.



Another completely different indication that old stuff could be of 
interest to tourists: when I moved to the UK from continental Europe 
in 1978 I was positively surprised to see, on the standard OS maps for 
hikers, references to Roamn and Saxon sites galore, tyipiclley in the 
form of "site of ..." and of many country paths and tracks labeled 
with their Roman or Saxon names, even though the present-day structure 
is much younger - they only retrace the Roman way like the present-day 
street in the first example on the wiki page retraces a former railway..



If there is something to see there .. then map that. I would not map a 
railway as a railway if all that can be seen is a board that has 
information about the old railway, I would map it as a tourist sign only 
- not a railway.


Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, 
map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM.




BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping 
old raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped, 
and to not write in the wiki that they should be removed.
BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove 
already mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors.



On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I need to reopen this thread.
>
>  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have
been
> replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this
is one
> of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been
> conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic
value and
> for that reason should be in OSM.


As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.

If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no
longer
exist.

Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that
should be
in OSM yet people map it...

A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 15:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jun 8, 2020, 16:11 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
>
> There may be other indicators of older lines:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sleepers_at_Bugsworth_basin_-_geograph.org.uk_-_450090.jpg
>
> Not sure whatever I am understanding description correctly - it is part
> of railway infrastructure for narrow gauge rail pulled by horses, right?
>

I'm not sure if I understand all of the description, either.  Stone sleepers
like that are typical of a narrow-gauge rail where horses or ponies were the
motive power: wooden sleepers would have presented an uneven surface
for them to walk on, so they walked between stones instead.  Usually
such railways were put in place for hauling minerals from workings, but
might have later been adapted for other uses.

> Also, it is common in my part of the world for older roads, bridleways,
> railways, some farm tracks and even some footpaths to have tree-lined
> hedges.  They're obvious from aerial imagery, although it may not always
> be apparent what type of way they enclose.
>
> If anyone finds image on Wikimedia Commons - please link it here (or just
> add it to a wiki)
>

If somebody wants to pay my passage on SpaceX and can loan me a P900, I'll
try to take a photo for you. :)  Alternatively, use an editor to look at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31982354#map=16/52.0511/-4.6189
especially the section south of Llwyncelyn (look at both the Bing and Maxar
imagery. one gives distinct tree-lined hedges and the other shows the
surface of
the way).

Other indications of former railways are bridges.  There is a typical
style for older railway bridges in the UK that makes them recognisable
as such: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3057076
The line that bridge once served is now the Western Approach Road in
Edinburgh and the bridge is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=55.94094=-3.22382#map=19/55.94094/-3.22382
The first time you see what is obviously a railway bridge with road traffic
on it is
a little disconcerting (well, it was for me).

> What, in principle, are the differences between historic maps, a website
> documenting that a route has been constructed over an old railway line
>
> and a sign at the start of the route saying that it follows the path of an
> old railway line?
>
> Is it a sole indicator that route follows former railway line?
>
> Then in all cases I think it is a case of
> "feature is so gone/degraded that it is no longer identifiable based on
> survey,
> requires import of external data to identify it"
>

But aerial imagery and mapillary imagery are external data.  Armchair
mapping
is not based on a survey either.  As I understand it, the very strict
requirement
of only surveys being permitted in the early days of OSM was to prevent
people importing copyright data.  Saying that it had to be based on a survey
was simpler for some people to understand than explaining copyright to
people determined not to understand copyright (like the guy here a few
months ago determined to use copyright data to map watercourses).

>
> I would map it as a property of route (follows_former_railway=yes or
> something)
> if I would want to map that,
>

The only issue I would have with that is the impact on OpenRailwayMap.  I'm
not a railway enthusiast and I've never been a train spotter, but they're a
community that makes use of that data.  I suspect they're also a community
who do the most to maintain the active rail network in OSM,  Do we gain
more by removing a very small amount of unnecessary information, or
chaning how it is tagged, than we lose by annoying them enough that they
lose interest in mapping or move to a different solution?  I know that's not
a good argument for various reasons, but it is something we should bear
in mind.

  cycleway route is verifiable, but route took by army is not)
>

Quite a few motor roads in the UK follow those "unverifiable" routes.  Some
are even named after those routes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watling_Street

I think that for "Here railway is gone without any clearly identifiable
> trace in
> terrain." case it is OK to have  "should not be mapped and can be deleted
> if
>
mapped." ("can be deleted" was just changed from "should be")
>

That's an improvement.  I'm tempted to say that it should suggest contacting
the original mapper before deleting, as the original mapper may be able to
provide evidence of identifiable trace.  But I'm also tempted not to,
because
I know that such a conversation is likely to degenerate into "I want it"
versus
"You're not having it."

Also - it is OK to have
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Galeria_Kazimierz.JPG
> example with
> "Location of a former railway and railway station without any
> traces whatsoever. Not mappable."
> ?
>

It's back to what you consider traces.  I wouldn't map a station building
which
has been demolished and built over.  OTOH, the razed railway 

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

2020-06-08 Thread Alan Mackie
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:07, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as a hazard.
>
> Last I heard it was "mostly harmless".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-08 Thread ael
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 02:57:29PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Warin, Jack,
> 
> your comments are really off my main point.
> We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions
> on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the
> middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets completely
> rewritten by one of the participants in the thread explicitly stating that
> razed railways should be *removed* from OSM.
> This is basically against good practice in OSM.
> In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled railways,
> the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is clearly wrong.
> Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that
> retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with adding
> railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the road or the
> cycle route.

+1

ael


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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 16:11 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>  
>
>> I added explicit "even if rails are gone".
>>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>> "the way will still be visible from the ballast that remains."
>>
>> Can you find a good photo of that on >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/>>  ?
>> I would add it to examples.
>>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Restos_del_Balastro_de_la_linea_ferrea_Cuatro_Vientos_-_Leganes.JPG
>
Added.

>
> There may be other indicators of older lines: > 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sleepers_at_Bugsworth_basin_-_geograph.org.uk_-_450090.jpg
>
Not sure whatever I am understanding description correctly - it is part
of railway infrastructure for narrow gauge rail pulled by horses, right?

> Also, it is common in my part of the world for older roads, bridleways,
> railways, some farm tracks and even some footpaths to have tree-lined
> hedges.  They're obvious from aerial imagery, although it may not always
> be apparent what type of way they enclose.
>
If anyone finds image on Wikimedia Commons - please link it here (or just add 
it to a wiki)

>
>
>>> Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been 
>>> constructed
>>> along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current 
>>> websites?
>>>
>>  
>>
>> Describe it as part where different mappers have different opinions? 
>>
>
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
:)

>> I guess that some people would want to map this, for me it is case of 
>> copying maps of historic data.
>>
>
> What, in principle, are the differences between historic maps, a website 
> documenting
> that a route has been constructed over an old railway line and a sign at the 
> start of
> the route saying that it follows the path of an old railway line?
>
Is it a sole indicator that route follows former railway line?

Then in all cases I think it is a case of 
"feature is so gone/degraded that it is no longer identifiable based on survey,
requires import of external data to identify it"

I would map it as a property of route (follows_former_railway=yes or something)
if I would want to map that, but if there are no longer existing traces of 
railway
I would not map former railway itself
(similarly I would be fine with mapping cycling route following route took by 
some
ancient army and tag is as battle-related and so on, but I would not map track 
took by army
- cycleway route is verifiable, but route took by army is not)


>> (the tricky part is that both of us have strong opinion here
>>
>
> Do we?  I'm not sure that I would map a razed railway line where no trace of 
> any
> of it remains.  I'm not sure if I would map a short section of line that has 
> been
> built over and no trace remains if there were clear traces of the rest of it, 
> but
> I wouldn't remove it if somebody else had mapped it.
>
Heh, I just reverted change to Wiki that claimed that local communities may 
decide to
forbid mapping of railways with clear remains and may allow to map ones where 
all traces
were completely utterly and totally eradicated.
( 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Demolished_Railway=1998630=1998621
 )

>> and it is tricky to distinguish case of "person is representing silent 
>>
>> mappers not participating in discussion" and "person has fringe opinion 
>>
>> not shared by anybody").
>>
>
> We don't have humming.  The best we can do is note that several people
> have expressed differing opinions and that the matter is contentious.  We
> can also note that certain edge cases have been highlighted.  I'm with Volker
> on this one: at this point in the conversation it is unhelpful for the wiki to
> be changed to state that these things should be removed whenever they
> are discovered.
>
I think that for
"Here railway is gone without any clearly identifiable trace in terrain."
case it is OK to have 
"should not be mapped and can be deleted if mapped."
("can be deleted" was just changed from "should be")

Also - it is OK to have
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Galeria_Kazimierz.JPG
example with
"Location of a former railway and railway station without any
traces whatsoever. Not mappable."
?
___
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

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
>
> The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as a hazard.
>
>
> railway=abandoned
> hazard=tagging_discussions
>

+1

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


> I added explicit "even if rails are gone".
>

Thank you.

"the way will still be visible from the ballast that remains."
>
> Can you find a good photo of that on https://commons.wikimedia.org/ ?
> I would add it to examples.
>

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Restos_del_Balastro_de_la_linea_ferrea_Cuatro_Vientos_-_Leganes.JPG

There may be other indicators of older lines:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sleepers_at_Bugsworth_basin_-_geograph.org.uk_-_450090.jpg

Also, it is common in my part of the world for older roads, bridleways,
railways, some farm tracks and even some footpaths to have tree-lined
hedges.  They're obvious from aerial imagery, although it may not always
be apparent what type of way they enclose.  Mapping the paths of
former railways indicates what those ways were (although it's possible
that some sections may have been repurposed as roads, cycleways or
footpaths).

I didn't add this former railway, but I've tweaked it.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31982354#map=14/52.0675/-4.6421

In the area shown, from Cardigan to Cilgerran it is part of National Cycle
Route 82.  Part of that is also the access road from Cilgerran to the Welsh
Wildlife Centre.  These are well documented as following the route of the
former railway.  I've only mapped the hedges lining the route at
the Cardigan end, but they're apparent elsewhere along the route.

Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been
>> constructed
>> along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current
>> websites?
>>
>
>
Describe it as part where different mappers have different opinions?
>

Sounds reasonable to me.

I guess that some people would want to map this, for me it is case of
> copying maps of historic data.
>

What, in principle, are the differences between historic maps, a website
documenting
that a route has been constructed over an old railway line and a sign at
the start of
the route saying that it follows the path of an old railway line?

>
> (the tricky part is that both of us have strong opinion here
>

Do we?  I'm not sure that I would map a razed railway line where no trace
of any
of it remains.  I'm not sure if I would map a short section of line that
has been
built over and no trace remains if there were clear traces of the rest of
it, but
I wouldn't remove it if somebody else had mapped it.

and it is tricky to distinguish case of "person is representing silent
>
mappers not participating in discussion" and "person has fringe opinion
>
not shared by anybody").
>

We don't have humming.  The best we can do is note that several people
have expressed differing opinions and that the matter is contentious.  We
can also note that certain edge cases have been highlighted.  I'm with
Volker
on this one: at this point in the conversation it is unhelpful for the wiki
to
be changed to state that these things should be removed whenever they
are discovered.

-- 
Paul
___
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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:32, brad <> bradha...@fastmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It 
>>  would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in 
>>  the US.  Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south.   We have 
>>  signs warning of rodents carrying plague around here, should we tag that 
>>  too?
>>
>
> The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as a hazard.
>

railway=abandoned
hazard=tagging_discussions
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 15:02 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>>> 
>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> For example >> 
>> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
>> promotes much stricter verification requirements.
>>
>> I am not sure whatever I would want go so far, but mapping something
>> appearing in a single aerial imagery seem not ideal.
>>
>
> So in parts of the world where only one source of aerial imagery is available,
> we can't map from it?  That doesn't seem right.
>
I have slight trouble with things appearing in a single aerial imagery or 
single official dataset
and completely and utterly unverifiable otherwise.

I have no trouble at all with mapping for example river in region where only one
source of aerial imagery is available, as river remain verifiable by a ground 
survey.

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 14:57 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> Warin, Jack,
>
> your comments are really off my main point.
> We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on 
> whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. 
>
This discussion appeared multiple times and is clear controversial point

> In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets 
> completely rewritten by one of the participants in the thread explicitly 
> stating that razed railways should be > removed>  from OSM. 
> This is basically against good practice in OSM.
>
It was not completely rewritten.

It used to contain "Most mappers follow a basic Good practice#Map what's on the 
ground principle, and would therefore regard the mapping of non-existant 
railways as incorrect data to be placing in the OpenStreetMap database."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Demolished_Railway=1625129


> In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled railways, 
> the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is clearly wrong.
>
Given long discussion(s) on exactly this topic "is clearly wrong" seems to be 
going quite far.

> Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that 
> retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with adding 
> railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the road or the cycle 
> route. 
>
Because OSM is not for mapping completely gone historical objects, this is not 
verifiable
and it invites mapping further historical and even harder to verify objects and 
promotes
mapping razed railways where even such "trace" is gone.

And it makes harder to edit actually existing objects, confuses mappers 
(especially newbies).

(to be explicit: this is my opinion, I know that consensus position is more 
balanced)

> many country paths and tracks labeled with their Roman or Saxon names, even 
> though the present-day structure is much younger - they only retrace the 
> Roman way like the present-day street in the first example on the wiki page 
> retraces a former railway..
>
There is 0 opposition to mapping cycleways following course of former railway. 
Sole problematic
part is whatever old railway can be mapped and if yes - how.

> BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping old 
> raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped, and to not 
> write in the wiki that they should be removed.
>
Old existing railways - there is no problem with mapping them
Old railways removed, but with traces remaining - mapping is OK (the tricky 
part is 
what counts as remains)
Fully completely and totally removed railways/roads/buildings can and should be 
deleted
and it is improving OpenStreetMap. 

To repeat: the "100% gone object should be deleted" has clear consensus.

The discussion is whatever razed railway can remain mappable - and in many 
cases it is.
And what counts as mappable railway. 

> BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove already 
> mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors. 
>
Removing already mapped objects in many cases is correcting mapping errors or 
updating map data.

I routinely delete nonexisting shops, nonexisting buildings, nonexisting 
trees/forests, nonexisting routes,
nonexisting ref, nonexisting paths, nonexisting, roads, nonexisting tracks 
and yes, also nonexisting railways (in my region last one is typically 
happening with short and minor 
spurs that used to serve industrial areas, now often disappearing as area is 
rebuilt what erases all traces).

Such edits are improving OSM.

(and yes: where possible I retag unsigned_ref or update to current state like 
natural=tree_stump or
use demolished:building where visible on aerial images and delete nonexisting 
railways in cases
only where no identifiable traces remain)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 14:45 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain 
>> mappable.",
>> removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole trace" is not mappable.
>>
>
> "Road geometry" is a little confusing.  So is the implicit requirement that 
> the
> rails remain.
>
I added explicit "even if rails are gone".
and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Demolished_Torwoodlee_Railway_Bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_750961.jpg
 was already present.
I will move it to the top.

>   The track bed is often visible even though the rails have been
> removed, especially where the terrain is not uniformly flat.  The rails of the
> railway may be gone, but the way remains because there is no point in going
> to the expense of removing it unless you want to put something else there
> (rails can be sold for scrap, so are worth removing).
>
> Although this video is about the construction of roadways, the principles of
> cut and fill are equally applicable to railways and give a good indication of
> the kind of remains that are visible after the track has been lifted:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK6I6Q58Ec>   Even where the
> terrain is completely level and the rails have been removed, the way will 
> still
> be visible from the ballast that remains.
>
> In some cases, the way will also be visible in aerial imagery because it is 
> lined 
> with hedges or leaves visible gaps in woods it passes through.
>
I also added a photo of a former railway cutting.

Is there a consensus how such feature should be mapped?

"the way will still be visible from the ballast that remains."

Can you find a good photo of that on https://commons.wikimedia.org/ ?
I would add it to examples.


>>
>>
>> Would be OK to add "road geometry where it is clear that it replaced railway 
>> may make such former railway mappable (+ image link). But in a case where on 
>> old map or 
>>
>> archeological survey would be needed to identify whatever road replaces 
>> former fortification/railway/canal such object is not really identifiable
>> and mapping such historic object in OSM is a bad idea."
>>
>
> Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been 
> constructed
> along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current 
> websites?
>
Describe it as part where different mappers have different opinions? 
I guess that some people would want to map this, for me it is case of copying 
maps of historic data.

(the tricky part is that both of us have strong opinion here and it is tricky 
to distinguish case
of "person is representing silent mappers not participating in discussion" and 
"person has fringe opinion not shared by anybody").
___
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

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:32, brad  wrote:

> I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It
> would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in
> the US.  Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south.   We have
> signs warning of rodents carrying plague around here, should we tag that
> too?
>

The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as a hazard.

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> For example
> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
> promotes much stricter verification requirements.
>
> I am not sure whatever I would want go so far, but mapping something
> appearing in a single aerial imagery seem not ideal.
>

So in parts of the world where only one source of aerial imagery is
available,
we can't map from it?  That doesn't seem right.

I can understand an objection to mapping an object that appears on older
imagery but not on newer imagery.  Things change.  After a survey of part
of town I rarely visit, I mapped a house (which was for sale) , but when I
happened to revisit it a couple of weeks later to check a detail nearby the
house
had been demolished.  But these are images of (intermittent) surfaces
traces created
by subsurface conditions so the feature mapped won't go away unless the site
is disturbed by, for example, construction.

Yes, official recognition (or ven better - placing information board or
> something there)
> would push it toward "lets map this".
>

There are archaeological features on Exmoor I've mapped that are officially
recognized and protected as archaeological features of national importance.
It needs an expert eye to distinguish them from naturally-occurring
features.
I'm also aware of what appear to be the same sort of feature documented
by amateurs which I have not mapped.  For all I know, the amateurs are
correct and in at least some cases the experts are wrong, but it is a
criminal offence to tamper with the features designated by the experts
(they're very easy to tamper with).

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Volker Schmidt
Warin, Jack,

your comments are really off my main point.
We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions
on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the
middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets completely
rewritten by one of the participants in the thread explicitly stating that
razed railways should be *removed* from OSM.
This is basically against good practice in OSM.
In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled railways,
the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is clearly wrong.
Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that
retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with adding
railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the road or the
cycle route.

Railway installations are major sites present in our environment, and there
is no good reason to remove them from the map, whether they are actively
used or only indirectly "visible".
Just two other observations to put this in context:
We have plenty of underground water courses, oil or gas pipelines where
only few objects on the surface indicate their underground existence -
no-one would object to having them in the map data, including the
underground parts.
Another completely different indication that old stuff could be of interest
to tourists: when I moved to the UK from continental Europe in 1978 I was
positively surprised to see, on the standard OS maps for hikers, references
to Roamn and Saxon sites galore, tyipiclley in the form of "site of ..."
and of many country paths and tracks labeled with their Roman or Saxon
names, even though the present-day structure is much younger - they only
retrace the Roman way like the present-day street in the first example on
the wiki page retraces a former railway..

BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping old
raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped, and to not
write in the wiki that they should be removed.
BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove already
mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors.


On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I need to reopen this thread.
> >
> >  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
> > replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one
> > of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been
> > conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> > I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> > railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and
> > for that reason should be in OSM.
>
>
> As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
> railway route here nothing remains of the railway.
>
> If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no longer
> exist.
>
> Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
> commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that should be
> in OSM yet people map it...
>
> A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
> railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain
> mappable.",
> removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole trace" is not mappable.
>

"Road geometry" is a little confusing.  So is the implicit requirement that
the
rails remain.  The track bed is often visible even though the rails have
been
removed, especially where the terrain is not uniformly flat.  The rails of
the
railway may be gone, but the way remains because there is no point in going
to the expense of removing it unless you want to put something else there
(rails can be sold for scrap, so are worth removing).

Although this video is about the construction of roadways, the principles of
cut and fill are equally applicable to railways and give a good indication
of
the kind of remains that are visible after the track has been lifted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK6I6Q58Ec  Even where the
terrain is completely level and the rails have been removed, the way will
still
be visible from the ballast that remains.

In some cases, the way will also be visible in aerial imagery because it is
lined
with hedges or leaves visible gaps in woods it passes through.


> Would be OK to add "road geometry where it is clear that it replaced
> railway may make such former railway mappable (+ image link). But in a case
> where on old map or
>
archeological survey would be needed to identify whatever road replaces
> former fortification/railway/canal such object is not really identifiable
> and mapping such historic object in OSM is a bad idea."
>

Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been
constructed
along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current
websites?

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> Have these objects left traces or not? >>> 
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797
>>> Are they mappable?
>>>
>> But verifying it seems problematic at best.
>>
>
> Unless there is a requirement that anything mapped by aerial imagery must
> be compared in two independent sets of imagery, I don't see a problem.
>
For example 
http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
promotes much stricter verification requirements.

I am not sure whatever I would want go so far, but mapping something
appearing in a single aerial imagery seem not ideal.


> have aerial imagery of these (but whether or not it is ever made available to
> us under appropriate copyright terms is another matter).  Verification is a
> matter of somebody else looking at the same imagery and reaching the
> same conclusion.
>
>>
>>
>> I see why mapping it could be exciting but It am very dubious about it and
>> would be against doing that.
>>
>
> I doubt the imagery will be released in a form we can use.  But it might be.
>
>>
>> (for reference in Poland there is now a discussion about importing index of 
>> archeological sites,decision seems to be to import ones where terrain shape 
>> remained and to not
>> import ones visible only as discoloration of vegetation visible on aerial 
>> images)
>>
>  
> I wouldn't map vegetation discolouration as indicative of anything because I
> don't have the expertise to tell what it means.  But if experts at a 
> governmental
> heritage organization determine that the discolouration is the result of a 
> particular
> historical feature and designates it as a nationally important archaeological
> site then I might map it as such (that designation would put it under legal
> protection and it would be a criminal act to dig it up).
>
Yes, official recognition (or ven better - placing information board or 
something there)
would push it toward "lets map this".
___
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

2020-06-08 Thread brad
I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It 
would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in 
the US.  Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south.   We have 
signs warning of rodents carrying plague around here, should we tag that 
too?


On 6/8/20 5:13 AM, Alan Mackie wrote:



On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 01:27, Jarek Piórkowski > wrote:


On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such
as some favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic
applied to dangerous areas caused by wildlife.

Big difficulty in defining where to place cut-off for dangerous and
when an area is dangerous... Ultimately most of the world has some
dangerous wildlife. If very unlucky you could be gored by a boar
within city limits of Berlin. Bears are semi-regularly found in some
suburbs of Vancouver. Where would you draw the line?


Signs are often posted for dangerous wildlife or trail conditions. I 
think the signs themselves would be more than welcome in OSM.


I don't know how this would be incorporated into a wider "area" type 
structure though. I imagine the boundaries of these areas are quite 
nebulous?


___
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] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> Have these objects left traces or not?
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797
> Are they mappable?
>
> But verifying it seems problematic at best.
>

Unless there is a requirement that anything mapped by aerial imagery must
be compared in two independent sets of imagery, I don't see a problem.  We
have aerial imagery of these (but whether or not it is ever made available
to
us under appropriate copyright terms is another matter).  Verification is a
matter of somebody else looking at the same imagery and reaching the
same conclusion.

>
> I see why mapping it could be exciting but It am very dubious about it and
> would be against doing that.
>

I doubt the imagery will be released in a form we can use.  But it might be.

>
> (for reference in Poland there is now a discussion about importing index
> of archeological sites,decision seems to be to import ones where terrain
> shape remained and to not
> import ones visible only as discoloration of vegetation visible on aerial
> images)
>

I wouldn't map vegetation discolouration as indicative of anything because I
don't have the expertise to tell what it means.  But if experts at a
governmental
heritage organization determine that the discolouration is the result of a
particular
historical feature and designates it as a nationally important
archaeological
site then I might map it as such (that designation would put it under legal
protection and it would be a criminal act to dig it up).

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 6, 2020, 00:02 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> I need to reopen this thread.
>
> We have not arrived at a consensus so far in this talk,
> Nevertheless the wiki page > Demolished_Railway 
> >  was completely 
> rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by > Mateusz Konieczny 
> 
> In particular the wording
> "Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road 
> alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out of 
> scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if mapped" 
> in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking 
> about, but had not agreed upon.
> This rewrite in the middle of an inclusive discussion on the main aspect of 
> the page seems to me not correct. As far as I remember (I may not have read 
> all the contributions in all details) we did not talk about rewriting that 
> page. I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the 
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced 
> by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of the more 
> fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and it is easy 
> to travel along a historical railroad.
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former railways, 
> watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and for that reason 
> should be in OSM.
>
Sorry for missing this message - I diffed to it only now.

It is now rewritten a bit, hopefully for better.

I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain 
mappable.",
removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole trace" is not mappable.

Would it be OK to add "There is consensus that former railway replaced by an 
open pit mine
which removed all traces is not mappable"? Or is a claim that traces may remain 
even then?

Would be OK to add "road geometry where it is clear that it replaced railway 
may make such
former railway mappable (+ image link). But in a case where on old map or 
archeological survey would be needed
to identify whatever road replaces former fortification/railway/canal such 
object is not really identifiable
and mapping such historic object in OSM is a bad idea."

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny  via Tagging wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>
> I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for;  shade, to 
> sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think  about things. 
> People park their cars, caravans and boats under  them.
>
>
> They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my  residence. 
>
>
> If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will  grass and 
> flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped  as residential 
> landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous. 
>
>
>
>
>
>>> 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 affectproperty 
>> 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 aclearly 
>> incorrect mapping.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that  does not 
> mean they are not parks because of the land cover. 
>
>
> I would contend similar consideration by held for residential  landuse. 
>
>
Yes, landuse=residential may include areas with tree, I fully agree here.

But "portions of these areas  do remain in a natural state" with 
residential status limited
solely to legal status (land ownership, legal right to build something there 
and start using
this land as landuse=residential) cases seem quite dubious to me.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 10:33, Cornelis  wrote:

>
> With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey as
> normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls dry roughly
> every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved with
> correct/additional tags? After reading the discussion I think at least
> three tags should be added:
>
> Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
> • historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a conflict
> with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?
>

They are not mutually exclusive.  If it is a tourist attraction then it
could
also have tourism=attraction.

• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far as i can
> tell after reading the wiki article.
> • seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for other
> things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?
>

Neither seem appropriate to me.  However, what you should have is access=no
to prevent routers from including it in walking routes.  What you could do,
to
show it is occasionally usable (if it is), is something like:

access=no
access:conditional=yes @ (above water)

I may not have the correct syntax there.  If so, somebody will be along to
correct me.

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained.
>> It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not mappable.
>>
> Have these objects left traces or not? > 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797
> Are they mappable?
>
Good question.

I would say that not mappable, but at least (extremely rarely, given that
it was just discovered) it can be visible without digging.

But I can be OK with mapping it, at least it is visible. Very rarely.

But verifying it seems problematic at best.

I see why mapping it could be exciting but It am very dubious about it and
would be against doing that.

And in case of mapping - make 100% clear what is this and how its existence
can be verified.

(for reference in Poland there is now a discussion about importing index of 
archeological sites,
decision seems to be to import ones where terrain shape remained and to not
import ones visible only as discoloration of vegetation visible on aerial 
images)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 13:14 by jan...@gmail.com:

> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 14:27 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Wikimedia Commons has no notability requirements, see
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
>>
>> It is perfectly fine to upload things like that there.
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
> Ok, you convinced me. Photos of buildings are even more notable then photos 
> of bicycle parking, so I'll try and take photos of a few buildings and see 
> how that goes.
>
> I probably won't be creating a category for each building, so then I will be 
> linking to those pictures with the image=* tag, right?
>
or/and with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons

I am doing it sometimes for especially interesting or especially complex 
objects (in addition or
instead explanation in note tag).

In case where object has a Wikipedia or OSM Wiki article
( 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Feature_pages_with_missing_images )
adding image there may be helpful! (if you want to do this but have trouble 
with technical part of 
doing this - ask on a mailing list, OSM Telegram or in other such channel for 
help)

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained.
> It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not mappable.
>
> Have these objects left traces or not?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797
Are they mappable?

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 12:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> 
> matkoni...@tutanota.com> >:
>
>>
>> Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>> <>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> >:
>>>
 On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt < vosc...@gmail.com > 
 wrote:

>>
>> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the 
>> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been 
>> replaced by roads with the same geometry.
>>
>
> +1
>
 Add I have no problem with removal of them.

>>>
>>>
>>> this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we should 
>>> be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It doesn't 
>>> appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove these 
>>> objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.
>>>
>> Can you edit wiki or link problematic page and quote text that should be 
>> changed?
>>
>
>
> the reference is Volker 6/6/2020, 0:04:
>
>> Nevertheless the wiki page >> Demolished_Railway 
>> >>  was completely 
>> rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by >> Mateusz Konieczny 
>> 
>> In particular the wording
>> "Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road 
>> alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out 
>> of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if 
>> mapped" 
>> in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking 
>> about, but had not agreed upon.
>>

I changed it now to 
"Here railway is gone without any clearly identifiable trace in terrain. Its 
course is well
documented, but such historic feature is out of scope of OpenStreetMap, should 
not be
mapped and should be deleted if mapped."

now, without taking position on road alignment issue. Is it OK? If not, how it 
should be changed
to reflect general opinion?


>
> Lets say that there was a castle and was replaced by a sport pitch, and place 
> looks like
>
>> this nowadays (a theoretical example):
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Tehelne_pole-pitch_and_stand.JPG
>>
>> Castle is remembered. Is such castle mappable? In my opinion would not be as 
>> there are
>> no identifiable traces (possibility of archeological excavations are not 
>> really changing this).
>>
>
>
>
> I do not know if this is a real example (you say it is theoretical)
>
This specific is 100% theoretical, I searched for "football pitch" and taken 
the first image.

> So even if this would be the only reason, there would have clearly been 
> traces of the castle, although not visible on the ground (but below). 
>
I am 100% OK with mapping such traces as visible on the photo, but mapping 
building 
as it existed in the past seems wrong to me.

Mapping underground remains seems terrible idea to me - older cities have 
entire layers,
meters of them of such traces.

In extreme cases so many remain were accumulated to change a geography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology) is an entire hill of
"accumulated remains of mudbricks and other refuse of generations of people 
living on
the same site for hundreds or thousands of years (...) can be up to 30 metres 
high."

Opening gates to mapping all such former objects is a bad idea.

> But there are other, less direct, traces. For example the castle left traces 
> in the urban structure, the main arterial road bends in front of the castle, 
> and it did so also during the time when the castle wasn't there. And some 
> buildings around it have always been referring to the castle, e.g. the 
> building for the imperial guards and horses. Also the name of the bridge 
> (castle bridge / Schloßbrücke) was always referring to the castle. 
>
And if we decide that mapping objects with this kind of traces can be mappable 
then we de facto
allow to map any historic objects.

Mapping object just because it left any trace at all, or related name remained 
is a bit too much.

I am OK with mapping if there are still identifiable trace (even road alignment 
if it is actually clearly
recognizable as former railway).

But if there is road and one is unable to distinguish between
"former canal" and "former railway", "destroyed fortifications"
 and "not constructed along geometry of a former object"
then mapping such canal/railway/wall is mapping of something so gone that out 
of scope of OSM.

BTW, thanks to this discussion I learned something about history of my city 
what was interesting.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-08 Thread Janko Mihelić
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 14:27 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Wikimedia Commons has no notability requirements, see
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
>
> It is perfectly fine to upload things like that there.
>

Ok, you convinced me. Photos of buildings are even more notable then photos
of bicycle parking, so I'll try and take photos of a few buildings and see
how that goes.

I probably won't be creating a category for each building, so then I will
be linking to those pictures with the image=* tag, right?

Janko
___
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

2020-06-08 Thread Alan Mackie
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 01:27, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such as some
> favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic applied to dangerous
> areas caused by wildlife.
>
> Big difficulty in defining where to place cut-off for dangerous and
> when an area is dangerous... Ultimately most of the world has some
> dangerous wildlife. If very unlucky you could be gored by a boar
> within city limits of Berlin. Bears are semi-regularly found in some
> suburbs of Vancouver. Where would you draw the line?
>
>
Signs are often posted for dangerous wildlife or trail conditions. I think
the signs themselves would be more than welcome in OSM.

I don't know how this would be incorporated into a wider "area" type
structure though. I imagine the boundaries of these areas are quite
nebulous?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

>
> Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>
> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
> replaced by roads with the same geometry.
>
>
> +1
>
> Add I have no problem with removal of them.
>
>
>
> this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we
> should be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It
> doesn't appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove
> these objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.
>
> Can you edit wiki or link problematic page and quote text that should be
> changed?
>


the reference is Volker 6/6/2020, 0:04:

> Nevertheless the wiki page Demolished_Railway
>  was completely
> rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by Mateusz Konieczny
> 
> In particular the wording
> " Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road
> alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out
> of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if
> mapped"
> in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking
> about, but had not agreed upon.
>



Lets say that there was a castle and was replaced by a sport pitch, and
place looks like

> this nowadays (a theoretical example):
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Tehelne_pole-pitch_and_stand.JPG
>
> Castle is remembered. Is such castle mappable? In my opinion would not be
> as there are
> no identifiable traces (possibility of archeological excavations are not
> really changing this).
>



I do not know if this is a real example (you say it is theoretical), but
according to what I experience every day, you can find many traces of
former things, which do not exist as such any more, but are still
detectable. Objects like castles hardly ever vanish completely without
leaving any traces.

Take the Berlin castle for example, here a sequence of different states:

around 1900, at its "top"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Berlin_Nationaldenkmal_Kaiser_Wilhelm_mit_Schloss_1900.jpg/1280px-Berlin_Nationaldenkmal_Kaiser_Wilhelm_mit_Schloss_1900.jpg

tearing it down 1950:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-08687-0010%2C_Berlin%2C_Stadtschloss%2C_Abriss.jpg

new building atop in 1981 (from the seventies):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-Z0602-323%2C_Berlin%2C_Palast_der_Republik%2C_Fernsehturm.jpg

>From the last picture you would not expect that anything remained, but when
they tore down the seventies building around the year 2000, some parts of
the old castle surfaced:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_Berliner_Stadtschloss_Keller_001.JPG

So even if this would be the only reason, there would have clearly been
traces of the castle, although not visible on the ground (but below). But
there are other, less direct, traces. For example the castle left traces in
the urban structure, the main arterial road bends in front of the castle,
and it did so also during the time when the castle wasn't there. And some
buildings around it have always been referring to the castle, e.g. the
building for the imperial guards and horses. Also the name of the bridge
(castle bridge / Schloßbrücke) was always referring to the castle.

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt <>> vosc...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>

 I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the 
 razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been 
 replaced by roads with the same geometry.

>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>> Add I have no problem with removal of them.
>>
>
>
> this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we should 
> be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It doesn't 
> appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove these 
> objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.
>
Can you edit wiki or link problematic page and quote text that should be 
changed?
I am not sure is it referring to Wiki in general or one of my edits (and yes, 
some of my edits
on Wiki/OSM make them worse - it is not really possible to completely avoid 
mistakes).

>> I see the point in cases of ones where there are no traces
>> but road geometry makes 100% clear that railway was there
>> and probably would not delete them.
>>
>> I see point in cases where track of former railway is marked/
>> memorialized/etc and that info is mentioned on OSM object.
>>
>> But for cases where new road is matching geometry but shape 
>> is not recognizable at all as track of former railroad, and
>> historic maps are needed to recognize it?
>>
>
>
> there aren't only written/drawn sources by the way. Oral tradition can also 
> be relevant. Your grandpa told your dad and your dad told you, why not? 
>
I am not against oral sources for a current data! Mapping housenumbers, street 
names,
peak names based on an a trustworthy oral source is perfectly fine.

But remembering about object is not changing whatever it is mappable.

Lets say that there was a castle and was replaced by a sport pitch, and place 
looks like
this nowadays (a theoretical example):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Tehelne_pole-pitch_and_stand.JPG

Castle is remembered. Is such castle mappable? In my opinion would not be as 
there are
no identifiable traces (possibility of archeological excavations are not really 
changing this).
 

>> Deletion should happen, OSM is not for objects that are gone.
>>
>
>
> we were discussing objects which left traces. "are gone" is not very precise, 
> do you intend to include things which aren't operational but traces are 
> there? Or does is mean "left not traces whatsoever"?
>
Obviously, we can map railway that are not operational and left clear traces.

We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained.
It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not mappable.

"left not traces whatsoever" seems to step - if you look sufficiently carefully
many things left some sort of traces (see historical ocean cases where I thing
everyone agrees to be not mappable in OSM - and there are clear traces of 
them!).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Weiche_der_ehemaligen_Bahnstrecke_Herzberg%E2%80%93Siebertal.jpg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Live_Oak_Perry_and_Gulf_Railroad_overgrown_abandoned_tracks.JPG
are clearly mappable 

But mapping railway in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Daewoo-FSO_Polonez_Atu_Plus_on_Zygmunta_Krasi%C5%84skiego_avenue_in_Krak%C3%B3w_(1).jpg
would be too far for me and I would delete it as a historic mapping if mapped 
(example
from my city so I know that former railway there is not identifiable without 
access to old maps).


>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Ocean
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Sea
>> and other >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_oceans
>> also left traces and are not mappable in OSM
>>
>
>
> I agree that these are not very compatible with OSM, similar to current 
> geological features, and even current oceans aren't very well represented in 
> OSM. They aren't good examples for discussing dismantled railways though. 
> They are former natural features, of millions and billions years ago (i.e. 
> all the coastlines were completely different), while railways are man made 
> features.
>
I intended them as example of something that is not mappable
despite leaving indentifiable traces. 

I agree that it is a bit mixed with poor mappability as a large scale 
geological feature.

I think that mapping former moat/canal in my city would be a better example

- it is 100% gone (replaced by a road)
- some traces remained (road follows course of a former moat)
- it is not recognizable as a former canal based on a current state
- though archeological/geological works would allow to prove that it was there
- well documented as a former canal in historic sources

Is this former, gone, not recognizable canal that left some traces still 
mappable in 

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Peter Neale via Tagging


>Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:31:20 +0200
>From: Cornelis 
>To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)
>Message-ID: 
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

>This thread is a great help to me, as I recently discovered this bridge
>and wondered if it can be tagged in a more appropriate way:
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.18387/8.95239

>Currently it is tagged like that (shortened):
>historic=bridge
>intermittent=yes
>layer=-1
>man_made=bridge
>name=Aseler Brücke
>seasonal=yes
>tourism=attraction

>With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treated as
>normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, although it only falls dry
>roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved
>with correct/additional tags? After reading the discussion I think at
>least three tags should be added:

>building=bridge
>abandoned=yes
>location=underwater

>Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
>• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a conflict
>with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?
>• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far as i
>can tell after reading the wiki article.
>• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for other
>things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?

>Regards
>Cornelis

Have you considered "flood_prone=yes" (14700 uses in taginfo), although I guess 
that is more used for places that are normally dry and only occasionally wet?
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-08 Thread European Water Project
Hi Martin,

Similarly, our project might not be around forever ... once single-use
plastic is a thing of the past :)

Which is why we seek to store user contributed images on Wikimedia Commons
(if they will accept them) rather than on our server.
https://europeanwaterproject.org/photos/index.html

Best regards,

Stuart



On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Martin,
>>
>> For-profit companies have different levels of openness, I think it would
>> be a mistake to put them all in the same bucket.
>>
>> While all their data and images are not open, Mapillary shares many
>> geolocalized images through creative commons licensing - in a more open
>> manner than many non-profit companies and local municipalities.
>>
>
>
> I might have not been clear with "If mapillary doesn’t allow for
> downloading the images (only thumbnails/previews) we should not link to
> it.", what I meant was that I would not encourage people to build on
> systems that aren't open (it didn't mean: go and remove them). I would also
> not object to people doing it nonetheless (if the links are still useful
> because you can get "something" from them), but we should be aware that we
> are building on sand here. The owner of the external db (here mapillary)
> can choose at any time to deny access to its data, or the company may go
> bancrupt or close its business for other reasons and we might have put a
> lot of effort into this in vain. Open projects allow for forking, while
> proprietary systems usually don't, so that the usefulness of related tags
> is deeply linked to the goodwill and operational situation of the company.
>
>
>
>> Hopefully a significant level of data openness will continue to be part
>> of Mapillary's business model.
>>
>>
>
> yes, we can just hope for it. Not more.
>
> 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] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
> replaced by roads with the same geometry.
>
> +1
>
> Add I have no problem with removal of them.
>


this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we should
be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It doesn't
appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove these
objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.



>
> I see the point in cases of ones where there are no traces
> but road geometry makes 100% clear that railway was there
> and probably would not delete them.
>
> I see point in cases where track of former railway is marked/
> memorialized/etc and that info is mentioned on OSM object.
>
> But for cases where new road is matching geometry but shape
> is not recognizable at all as track of former railroad, and
> historic maps are needed to recognize it?
>


there aren't only written/drawn sources by the way. Oral tradition can also
be relevant. Your grandpa told your dad and your dad told you, why not?



>
> Deletion should happen, OSM is not for objects that are gone.
>


we were discussing objects which left traces. "are gone" is not very
precise, do you intend to include things which aren't operational but
traces are there? Or does is mean "left not traces whatsoever"?



>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Ocean
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Sea
> and other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_oceans
> also left traces and are not mappable in OSM
>


I agree that these are not very compatible with OSM, similar to current
geological features, and even current oceans aren't very well represented
in OSM. They aren't good examples for discussing dismantled railways
though. They are former natural features, of millions and billions years
ago (i.e. all the coastlines were completely different), while railways are
man made features.

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


Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Cornelis

This thread is a great help to me, as I recently discovered this bridge
and wondered if it can be tagged in a more appropriate way:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.18387/8.95239

Currently it is tagged like that (shortened):
historic=bridge
intermittent=yes
layer=-1
man_made=bridge
name=Aseler Brücke
seasonal=yes
tourism=attraction

With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey as
normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls dry
roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved
with correct/additional tags? After reading the discussion I think at
least three tags should be added:

building=bridge
abandoned=yes
location=underwater

Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a conflict
with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?
• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far as i
can tell after reading the wiki article.
• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for other
things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?

Regards
Cornelis

Am 06.06.20 um 12:47 schrieb Paul Allen:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 10:22, Lanxana . mailto:lanxa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

We have been looking for how to tag the ruins of constructions
(buildings, bridges or roads) that are inside some reservoirs.
Although they generally remain underwater, but in times of
drought, when the reservoir level drops low enough, they can be
visited on foot.  Like this [1]

On first time, the combination historic=ruins + building=yes (or
whatever corresponds) identifies that it’s a historical feature,

The wiki page on historic features says that historic=* is to identify
features
of historic interest.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic
The key historic=* is not a synonym for old=*. Admittedly, the page also
says it is somewhat subjective as to what is of historic interest, but
it gives
several criteria which I do not think are satisfied here.

Nor is historic=ruins really appropriate.  Some of the buildings may
be intact.
And they're not really of historic interest.  The ruins of St Dogmaels
Abbey
qualify as historic=ruins.  See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Dogmaels_Abbey_-_geograph.org.uk_-_309701.jpg

A better way of handling non-historic ruins, is to use ruins=yes or
namespace the key, such as ruins:building=house.  There has been
much debate on this list as to which of those two is correct and if one is
preferred over the other in certain circumstances.  All I'll point out
is that with some renderers ruins:building=house does not render
but with ruins=yes it does.

If the building is not in ruins but has been abandoned (by virtue of being
underwater most of the time, then abandoned:building=house or
abandoned=yes.

it’s in ruins and/or it isn’t habitable. But how to indicate that
it’s underwater partially or totally and its access is
occasionally possible, when the water drops?

location=underwater accounts for normal state.  You could possibly use a
conditional to indicate occasional visibility but it's probably not
worth it.  Especially
as most of the rare times it's uncovered it will only be partially
uncovered to a
greater or lesser extent.  A note or description on the body of water
is probably
the way to handle it: "During times of low water some buildings may be
visible."

I find these tags, but none convinces me:

Historic=wreck [2] -> only for nautical elements

Specifically for vessels.  "Wreck" as in "shipwreck."

Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
beneath”, it isn’t the case…

But see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location which
does not
say "installed."  I suspect that "installed" was used in the page you
found
because it was written by somebody who does not have English as a first
language or was written by somebody who was only thinking of man-made
POIs.  Or maybe it was written by somebody who didn't like using the
word "located" because it seemed a little repetitious so went with
"installed."

So building=whatever + ruins=yes + location=underwater or
ruins:building=whatever + location=underwater.

--
Paul


___
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] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> Dear Martin,
>
> For-profit companies have different levels of openness, I think it would
> be a mistake to put them all in the same bucket.
>
> While all their data and images are not open, Mapillary shares many
> geolocalized images through creative commons licensing - in a more open
> manner than many non-profit companies and local municipalities.
>


I might have not been clear with "If mapillary doesn’t allow for
downloading the images (only thumbnails/previews) we should not link to
it.", what I meant was that I would not encourage people to build on
systems that aren't open (it didn't mean: go and remove them). I would also
not object to people doing it nonetheless (if the links are still useful
because you can get "something" from them), but we should be aware that we
are building on sand here. The owner of the external db (here mapillary)
can choose at any time to deny access to its data, or the company may go
bancrupt or close its business for other reasons and we might have put a
lot of effort into this in vain. Open projects allow for forking, while
proprietary systems usually don't, so that the usefulness of related tags
is deeply linked to the goodwill and operational situation of the company.



> Hopefully a significant level of data openness will continue to be part of
> Mapillary's business model.
>
>

yes, we can just hope for it. Not more.

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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jun 7, 2020, 23:36 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the 
>> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been 
>> replaced by roads with the same geometry.
>>
>
>
> +1
>
Add I have no problem with removal of them.

I see the point in cases of ones where there are no traces
but road geometry makes 100% clear that railway was there
and probably would not delete them.

I see point in cases where track of former railway is marked/
memorialized/etc and that info is mentioned on OSM object.

But for cases where new road is matching geometry but shape 
is not recognizable at all as track of former railroad, and
historic maps are needed to recognize it?

Deletion should happen, OSM is not for objects that are gone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Ocean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Sea
and other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_oceans
also left traces and are not mappable in OSM
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-08 Thread European Water Project
Dear Martin,

For-profit companies have different levels of openness, I think it would be
a mistake to put them all in the same bucket.

While all their data and images are not open, Mapillary shares many
geolocalized images through creative commons licensing - in a more open
manner than many non-profit companies and local municipalities.

Hopefully a significant level of data openness will continue to be part of
Mapillary's business model.

Best regards,

Stuart


On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 10:28, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 5. Jun 2020, at 10:14, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > They also expressed interest in having more Mapillary images linked to
> OSM objects.
>
>
> from the OpenStreetMap point of view it seems preferable to have the
> images we link to available openly. If mapillary doesn’t allow for
> downloading the images (only thumbnails/previews) we should not link to it.
>
> 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] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone

On 6. Jun 2020, at 11:22, Lanxana .  wrote:

But how to indicate that it’s underwater partially or totally and its
access is occasionally possible, when the water drops?



an area with natural=water around it?


I find these tags, but none convinces me:...

Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
beneath”, it isn’t the case…


the definition doesn't seem suitable. Why shouldn't an underwater thing
extend into the ground? The relevant part is "inside a water body / under
water surface", but there shouldn't be requirements to not extend
below/inside the floor


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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Jun 2020, at 03:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground 
> penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist
> 

ultimately things under the surface would be included, the distinction is not 
how difficult to find or hard to access something is, but whether “it exists”


> 
> Where something has been demolished and replaced with something else, should 
> the old thing remain in OSM? 
> 


If nothing at all has remained, usually no, eventually for some time yes (e.g. 
to avoid someone reputting it from aerial imagery). 
> 
> And yes I am thinking of old railway routes that have gone and been replaced 
> with roads/rail trails etc. 
> 
> 
> 
> To me - the old thing is no longer there, the new thing has overlay-ed it and 
> replaces it. If people want to map old things .. well their place should be 
> in OHM not OSM.


we were discussing things which have been removed or have decayed but of which 
something has remained. These can be very sparse, small and hard to find 
traces, but something must be observable. It does not mean everybody must be 
able to identify and correctly interpret it, even without additional knowledge.

Cheers Martin 


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


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

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 7. Jun 2020, at 23:54, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> 
> Do you also object when the geometry of the railway and the road is a
> straight line?


yes

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