Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Alan Mackie
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 19:59, Phake Nick  wrote:

>
>
> 在 2020年7月31日週五 00:24,Alan Mackie  寫道:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 16:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie <
>>> aamac...@gmail.com>:
>>>
 This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably
 be to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the
 EU ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding
 that the EU gets its own admin_level not used by other top level entities
 breaks consistency with the rest of the world for the sake of local pride.

>>>
>>>
>>> which other top level entities are you getting at? Why should we not tag
>>> these with the same tag?
>>>
>>
>> Other independent nations, this is why I suggested the promotion of all
>> other admin_level=2 if we went this rote
>>
>
> admin_level=1 is by definition higher than national level.
>

According to the wiki, but current practice doesn't really use it for much
beyond historic sites according to previous replies to this thread.  At a
practical level it mostly seems reserved for future use.

I would say a historical example could be German Confederation, before the
> unification of Germany
> Another historical example could be the Communist Bloc, which is larger
> than the Soviet Union.
> It might also be useful to map the limit of power of other countries that
> formally controls a number of tributary, vassal or proxy states beyond its
> own border.
>

For the 'territories formerly known as colonies' that formally remain at
least partly attached to their former ruling states a variety of levels are
currently in use. The self governing ones seem to be tagged as
admin_level=2, others as 3 or 4 depending on how they see themselves. At
least in my non-scientific look at the ones that happened to pop into my
head. These largely seem to have found their own solutions within OSM's
existing tagging structure. Attempting to tag proxy states seems like
taking political stances that OSM has historically tried to stay as far
away from as possible.

Many if not most of the entities mentioned in this discussion as being
candidates for "admin level above country" do have geographic reach
encompassing multiple countries, but are also limited in scope, often
severely. To tag such a limited body as fully encompassing a higher admin
level seems fundamentally flawed as a concept. If their powers were
expanded to have unlimited scope within that geographic area you would
effectively have a single larger country. Having an entity grow in scope
from "admin levels that includes (largely) independent countries" down to
admin level of a country seems counter to the general structure.



___
> 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] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年7月31日週五 00:24,Alan Mackie  寫道:

>
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 16:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie <
>> aamac...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably
>>> be to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the
>>> EU ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding
>>> that the EU gets its own admin_level not used by other top level entities
>>> breaks consistency with the rest of the world for the sake of local pride.
>>>
>>
>>
>> which other top level entities are you getting at? Why should we not tag
>> these with the same tag?
>>
>
> Other independent nations, this is why I suggested the promotion of all
> other admin_level=2 if we went this rote
>

admin_level=1 is by definition higher than national level.
I would say a historical example could be German Confederation, before the
unification of Germany
Another historical example could be the Communist Bloc, which is larger
than the Soviet Union.
It might also be useful to map the limit of power of other countries that
formally controls a number of tributary, vassal or proxy states beyond its
own border.

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen
Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:04, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>
>> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
>> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
>> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
>> the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of
>> super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than
>> seceding from a country.
> 
> 
> To me it is not a question how easy it is for a nation to leave the 
> supranational entity. The EU does have legislative and jurisdictional powers 
> above the member countries,
Yes.
> guidelines they issue have to be converted into national law,

directives have to.

EU regulations are immediately enforceable
> and the European Court is above the national courts.
> 
> Cheers Martin  
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Alan Mackie
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 16:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie  >:
>
>> This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably
>> be to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the
>> EU ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding
>> that the EU gets its own admin_level not used by other top level entities
>> breaks consistency with the rest of the world for the sake of local pride.
>>
>
>
> which other top level entities are you getting at? Why should we not tag
> these with the same tag?
>

Other independent nations, this is why I suggested the promotion of all
other admin_level=2 if we went this route.


> Actually, admin_level=1 is already quite established, just with a
> different key: heritage=1 (for UN heritage sites)
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/heritage=1#map
>
>
>
>>
>> The EU is not the only entity that has arisen by agreement of neighbours
>> to clump together, in that respect it is only unique in that it is the most
>> populous one that happens to be doing so at this particular point in time.
>>
>
>
> you are of course free to add the past ones in OHM ;-)
>
> I think most of the surviving ones are already in OSM as admin_level=2.

A more radical approach would be to drop admin_level entirely and rely on
the way the relations are nested.  However, I imagine the thought of
processing that would reduce all but the most stoic of data consumers to
tears, not to mention the fragility of mapping this way, the difficulty in
doing so with OSM's typical philosophy of incremental improvement and the
myriad of problems that results when borders are fuzzy and hard to pin
down.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-30 Thread Justin Tracey
The problem with tagging it as an orchard isn't that it doesn't look
like an orchard in the British sense, it's that it intentionally does
not look like cultivated land at all. Banana and date plantations still
look very artificial, with very little ground cover or biodiversity,
while a typical forest garden will, without closer inspection, look
something akin to a nature reserve. If someone were walking around some
woods using the map, tried positioning themselves around it, and were
looking for an orchard or tree farm, that would be largely useless.

 - Justin

On 2020-07-30 10:38 a.m., Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> A landuse=orchard is any area of perennial shrubs and trees which is
> used to produce food. In the tropics this tag is used for bananas tea
> and coffee, and oil date palms, all of which are not exactly
> “orchards” in the British sense. This was proposed in the original vote.
>
> So if Wikipedia is correct that  “ The three main products from a
> forest garden are fruit, nuts and green leafy vegetables
> .“ it is probably
> mainly landuse=orchard + landuse=farmland as a secondary use.
>
> I also see that these are called a “huerto familiar” in Mexico, which
> literally means “family orchard”.
>
> Perhaps landuse=orchard + orchard=forest_garden would work?
>
> Note that we previously discussed a similar issue with areas that are
> used as orchards + pasture in Spain, if I recall
>
> Since almost any 2 types of agricultural land can be combined, it
> might be better to think about a wholistic solution, since as a way to
> tag the secondary landuse or secondary vegetation of a certain area.
>
> - Joseph
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:22 AM Justin Tracey  > wrote:
>
> On 2020-07-30 7:40 a.m., Paul Allen wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe
>> mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me.
>>
>>
>> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as
>> part orchard,
>> was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate
>> tag I'll
>> change it.
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul
>
> Forest gardens are definitely not orchards. For one, they're
> designed to resemble (or be) natural ecologies as much as
> possible, and therefore look very different; and two, most of the
> food in them doesn't actually come from the trees (or rather,
> doesn't come directly from the trees -- again, the point is to be
> a healthy ecology), so they function and operate very differently.
>
>
>  - Justin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



30 Jul 2020, 14:33 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote: 
>>
>>> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
>>>  of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament
>>>  and justicial branches impacting citizens directly.
>>>
>>
>> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
>>  higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
>>  decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
>>  the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of
>>  super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than
>>  seceding from a country.
>>  
>>
> Ask the Brits how easy it is to leave...
>  
> You might not like it, but the EU is already a super-state that acts as one, 
> with a federation of states below.
>
It is not so simple.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie :

> This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably be
> to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the EU
> ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding
> that the EU gets its own admin_level not used by other top level entities
> breaks consistency with the rest of the world for the sake of local pride.
>


which other top level entities are you getting at? Why should we not tag
these with the same tag?
Actually, admin_level=1 is already quite established, just with a different
key: heritage=1 (for UN heritage sites)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/heritage=1#map



>
> The EU is not the only entity that has arisen by agreement of neighbours
> to clump together, in that respect it is only unique in that it is the most
> populous one that happens to be doing so at this particular point in time.
>


you are of course free to add the past ones in OHM ;-)



> Of course every entity is unique in its own special way, but the
> uniqueness of individual trees and mountains doesn't stop us from
> attempting consistent tagging.
>


+1

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Alan Mackie
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 15:02, Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2020-07-30 15:05, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:You might not like it, but the
>> EU is already a super-state that acts as one, with a federation of states
>> below. I know the whole idea of a "United States of Europe" and a formal
>> federal constitution is toxic, but basically we are already there. What is
>> left to do is to remove the opt-outs and other exceptional treatment
>> afforded to certain states.
>>
>
> If this is truly the case then we already have a label for this:
> admin_level=2 (but see below).
>
>
> The absolute number of the admin_level is less relevant than the relative
> position in the hierarchy. The level for the EU must be above (i.e.
> numerically lower) than the level of its members. If the EU comes in at
> level 2, then the member states would have to go to level 3 or 4; as many
> countries already use these levels, it could cause an avalanche of changes
> and cause the tagging in Europe to get unacceptably out of step with the
> rest of the world. The EU is a unique construct, so it should not be
> surprising if it needs a unique solution in OSM.
>

This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably be
to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the EU
ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding
that the EU gets its own admin_level not used by other top level entities
breaks consistency with the rest of the world for the sake of local pride.

The EU is not the only entity that has arisen by agreement of neighbours to
clump together, in that respect it is only unique in that it is the most
populous one that happens to be doing so at this particular point in time.
Of course every entity is unique in its own special way, but the uniqueness
of individual trees and mountains doesn't stop us from attempting
consistent tagging.


>
>
> I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrative
>> boundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smaller
>> countries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities,
>> and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countries
>> pool their defense with one group, and their currency with another.
>> Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographic
>> thinking. We can do better than that.
>>
>> The EU has laws with direct effect, which override national laws. This
>> pooling of capabilities you refer to would not have any laws of its own -
>> only treaties between countries, which may implement certain measures in
>> their national laws as a consequence. The EU is not like that, it has its
>> own laws, that our representatives get to vote on.
>>
> EU directives generally have to be transposed into national law by all the
> member states. IIRC it is the copy-pasted law that theoretically holds the
> power even though the members have all agreed to run everything through the
> photocopier. Whether this is a tangible thing or just a figleaf is for the
> lawyers to fight over.
>
>
> No, it is extremely clear that some EU directives have direct effect,
> without any action being required from the member states.
>
> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al14547
>

>From the link above: " This principle only relates to certain European
acts. Furthermore, it is subject to several conditions."

So only certain things, the rest continue to behave largely as if the
states had developed them individually.


>
>
>> Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to map
>> the outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of the
>> EU states.
>>
>> The Schengen region is DEFINITELY not an admin boundary. It does not
>> actually exist in a tangible form, only as EU law and treaties of
>> association on paper. It covers only part of the EU, and several non-EU
>> territories.
>>
> I disagree with this, the agents at the border are very tangible.
>
>
> The agents at the border don't work for "Schengen" - they work for their
> national organisations. There is no "Schengen" to employ them. What I meant
> by tangible was some kind of organisation with people and offices. It also
> doesn't have its own rules and regulations - they are now part of the aquis
> communitaire. Changes to "Schengen rules" are just EU law changes like any
> other. Speaking of border agents, it is actually the absence of such agents
> (on the internal borders) that characterises Schengen; the presence of
> immigration officers at the outer boundary just makes it like any "normal"
> international border.
>

By the first part of this argument: the EU shouldn't be mapped either
because no one works for an organisation named "Lisbon".

By the second: the presence or absence of border agents (or their
facilities) along a border, (or equivalent 

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-30 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
In Indonesia, Costa Rica, Peru and Mexico, it is common to find 30cm kerbs
in older neighborhoods. In Nicaragua there were some that were at least 45
cm high, in Leon or Granada.

Tropical countries with heavy rainfall often do this to avoid flooding.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
> p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:
>
>> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like
>> 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
>>
>> At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
>> crossing them.
>>
>
>
> that's why it could be interesting to tag it. If we had a hierarchy
> lowered, regular, raised, it would make sense.
>
>
>>
>> In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek I
>> have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
>> experience normal.
>>
>
>
> ok, then make it regular: 315
>
> 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] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-30 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
A landuse=orchard is any area of perennial shrubs and trees which is used
to produce food. In the tropics this tag is used for bananas tea and
coffee, and oil date palms, all of which are not exactly “orchards” in the
British sense. This was proposed in the original vote.

So if Wikipedia is correct that  “ The three main products from a forest
garden are fruit, nuts and green leafy vegetables
.“ it is probably mainly
landuse=orchard + landuse=farmland as a secondary use.

I also see that these are called a “huerto familiar” in Mexico, which
literally means “family orchard”.

Perhaps landuse=orchard + orchard=forest_garden would work?

Note that we previously discussed a similar issue with areas that are used
as orchards + pasture in Spain, if I recall

Since almost any 2 types of agricultural land can be combined, it might be
better to think about a wholistic solution, since as a way to tag the
secondary landuse or secondary vegetation of a certain area.

- Joseph

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:22 AM Justin Tracey  wrote:

> On 2020-07-30 7:40 a.m., Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me.
>>
>
> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part
> orchard,
> was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll
> change it.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> Forest gardens are definitely not orchards. For one, they're designed to
> resemble (or be) natural ecologies as much as possible, and therefore look
> very different; and two, most of the food in them doesn't actually come
> from the trees (or rather, doesn't come directly from the trees -- again,
> the point is to be a healthy ecology), so they function and operate very
> differently.
>
>
>  - Justin
> ___
> 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] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-30 Thread Justin Tracey
On 2020-07-30 7:40 a.m., Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe  > wrote:
>
>
> Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me.
>
>
> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part
> orchard,
> was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll
> change it.
>
> -- 
> Paul

Forest gardens are definitely not orchards. For one, they're designed to
resemble (or be) natural ecologies as much as possible, and therefore
look very different; and two, most of the food in them doesn't actually
come from the trees (or rather, doesn't come directly from the trees --
again, the point is to be a healthy ecology), so they function and
operate very differently.

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


Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 13:16 Uhr schrieb ael :

> Only because, as you say, the source tag is misused. I admit that
> extending tags is not very widely done,



like it or not, this is what makes the whole concept dysfunctional in
practise. Maybe it's time to change habits ;-)



> and some people seem to have
> trouble parsing ";" which I use as a separator. But my tags generally
> look like source=first;second;... when appropriate. I only delete
> sections of the source when the original corresponding data has been
> completely revised. That is quite common in the UK where some origianl
> rough & ready mapping was done from old maps (NPR, etc). When that has
> been completely reworked, then the original source=NPR; component can
> be deleted.
>


It is not done. These tags linger there for ever and ever. Have a look at
this: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/source=PGS#map
My bet is that most or at least a big fraction of these have been
significantly modified since they have been imported in the beginning of
OSM.



>
> > There’s a reason why source tags on objects are discouraged. To make
> sense of them you have to dig into the object history anyway. Too many
> people just keep/ignore the source tags regardless of their own edits.
>
> Surely it is better to educate people who perhaps don't realise how to
> extend or modify tags?



I would like to reiterate: There’s a reason why source tags on objects are
discouraged. Sources always belong to edits, the objects are a sum of all
edits.

Amended source-tags can be even worse. At least I know what source=Bing was
supposed to mean at the time of creation, but what does source=Bing;Mapbox
tell me?
The aerial imagery also changes, if something was traced from Bing in 2012,
the information about it does not help me in any way (not that it was Bing,
that it was 2012 of course can be useful information)

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


Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:

> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like
> 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
>
> At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
> crossing them.
>


that's why it could be interesting to tag it. If we had a hierarchy
lowered, regular, raised, it would make sense.


>
> In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek I
> have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
> experience normal.
>


ok, then make it regular: 315

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-07-30 15:05, Alan Mackie wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:You might not like it, but the EU 
>> is already a super-state that acts as one, with a federation of states 
>> below. I know the whole idea of a "United States of Europe" and a formal 
>> federal constitution is toxic, but basically we are already there. What is 
>> left to do is to remove the opt-outs and other exceptional treatment 
>> afforded to certain states.

> If this is truly the case then we already have a label for this: 
> admin_level=2 (but see below).

The absolute number of the admin_level is less relevant than the
relative position in the hierarchy. The level for the EU must be above
(i.e. numerically lower) than the level of its members. If the EU comes
in at level 2, then the member states would have to go to level 3 or 4;
as many countries already use these levels, it could cause an avalanche
of changes and cause the tagging in Europe to get unacceptably out of
step with the rest of the world. The EU is a unique construct, so it
should not be surprising if it needs a unique solution in OSM. 

> I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrative
> boundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smaller
> countries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities,
> and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countries
> pool their defense with one group, and their currency with another.
> Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographic
> thinking. We can do better than that. 
> The EU has laws with direct effect, which override national laws. This 
> pooling of capabilities you refer to would not have any laws of its own - 
> only treaties between countries, which may implement certain measures in 
> their national laws as a consequence. The EU is not like that, it has its own 
> laws, that our representatives get to vote on.

EU directives generally have to be transposed into national law by all
the member states. IIRC it is the copy-pasted law that theoretically
holds the power even though the members have all agreed to run
everything through the photocopier. Whether this is a tangible thing or
just a figleaf is for the lawyers to fight over. 

No, it is extremely clear that some EU directives have direct effect,
without any action being required from the member states. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al14547 

> Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to map
> the outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of the
> EU states. 
> The Schengen region is DEFINITELY not an admin boundary. It does not 
> actually exist in a tangible form, only as EU law and treaties of association 
> on paper. It covers only part of the EU, and several non-EU territories.

I disagree with this, the agents at the border are very tangible. 

The agents at the border don't work for "Schengen" - they work for their
national organisations. There is no "Schengen" to employ them. What I
meant by tangible was some kind of organisation with people and offices.
It also doesn't have its own rules and regulations - they are now part
of the aquis communitaire. Changes to "Schengen rules" are just EU law
changes like any other. Speaking of border agents, it is actually the
absence of such agents (on the internal borders) that characterises
Schengen; the presence of immigration officers at the outer boundary
just makes it like any "normal" international border. 

(This is why a new EU member state would not have to sign up to Schengen
- it would be automatic on accession. If you wanted an opt-out you would
have to negotiate for that)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Alan Mackie
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 14:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:41, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> >
> > To me pooling resources does not generate a higher level entity, it
> rearranges existing ones. If the EU does become the "final decider" across
> all branches of government, then to me it becomes the admin_level=2 entity
> and the states that form it become "lower level" entities.
>
>
> the final decider across some branches of government can also be a lower
> entity than the country level, eg states or German Bundesländer in federal
> systems.
>

The agreement to leave powers to smaller entities still normally recorded
in law or legal ruling at the "next level up" though?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2020, at 13:42, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part orchard,
> was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll
> change it


there’s no principal problem with using undocumented tags, although it would be 
preferable to add a proposed definition when you introduce a new tag, as 
there’s the risk it could be used with different intentions by other mappers 
when you don’t.

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:41, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> To me pooling resources does not generate a higher level entity, it 
> rearranges existing ones. If the EU does become the "final decider" across 
> all branches of government, then to me it becomes the admin_level=2 entity 
> and the states that form it become "lower level" entities.


the final decider across some branches of government can also be a lower entity 
than the country level, eg states or German Bundesländer in federal systems.

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:04, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
> the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of
> super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than
> seceding from a country.


To me it is not a question how easy it is for a nation to leave the 
supranational entity. The EU does have legislative and jurisdictional powers 
above the member countries, guidelines they issue have to be converted into 
national law, and the European Court is above the national courts.

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Alan Mackie
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
> of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament
> and justicial branches impacting citizens directly.
>
>
> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
> the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of
> super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than
> seceding from a country.
>
>
> Ask the Brits how easy it is to leave...
>

I think it's a great deal easier than it would be for e.g. California to
succeed from their union. Easier is not the same as easy.

You might not like it, but the EU is already a super-state that acts as
> one, with a federation of states below. I know the whole idea of a "United
> States of Europe" and a formal federal constitution is toxic, but basically
> we are already there. What is left to do is to remove the opt-outs and
> other exceptional treatment afforded to certain states.
>

If this is truly the case then we already have a label for this:
admin_level=2 (but see below).


> I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrative
> boundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smaller
> countries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities,
> and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countries
> pool their defense with one group, and their currency with another.
> Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographic
> thinking. We can do better than that.
>
>
> The EU has laws with direct effect, which override national laws. This
> pooling of capabilities you refer to would not have any laws of its own -
> only treaties between countries, which may implement certain measures in
> their national laws as a consequence. The EU is not like that, it has its
> own laws, that our representatives get to vote on.
>
>
EU directives generally have to be transposed into national law by all the
member states. IIRC it is the copy-pasted law that theoretically holds the
power even though the members have all agreed to run everything through the
photocopier. Whether this is a tangible thing or just a figleaf is for the
lawyers to fight over.


> Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to map
> the outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of the
> EU states.
>
> The Schengen region is DEFINITELY not an admin boundary. It does not
> actually exist in a tangible form, only as EU law and treaties of
> association on paper. It covers only part of the EU, and several non-EU
> territories.
>
>
I disagree with this, the agents at the border are very tangible.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Alan Mackie
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 13:05, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote:
> > The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
> > of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament
> > and justicial branches impacting citizens directly.
>
> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
> the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of
> super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than
> seceding from a country.
>

To me pooling resources does not generate a higher level entity, it
rearranges existing ones. If the EU does become the "final decider" across
all branches of government, then to me it becomes the admin_level=2 entity
and the states that form it become "lower level" entities. In practical
terms it would probably be easier at that point to give them admin_level=1
and automatically retag all non-EU admin_level=2 entities as admin_level=1
(~250?) rather than running through every admin boundary within the EU and
adding 1 to it (thousands?). After all, in many countries, the admin_levels
are already rather sparse so having a gap between 1 and 3 shouldn't be too
much of an issue.  This doesn't seem like a thing that will need to happen
for another couple of decades if it happens at all.


> I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrative
> boundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smaller
> countries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities,
> and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countries
> pool their defense with one group, and their currency with another.
> Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographic
> thinking. We can do better than that.
>
> Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to map
> the outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of the
> EU states.
>

I think it would be useful to have distinct tagging for these types of
agreements, I know of at least one other currency union, and I can imagine
a map of what you need in your wallet might come in handy for travellers.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
>> of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament
>> and justicial branches impacting citizens directly.
> 
> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
> the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of
> super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than
> seceding from a country.

Ask the Brits how easy it is to leave... 

You might not like it, but the EU is already a super-state that acts as
one, with a federation of states below. I know the whole idea of a
"United States of Europe" and a formal federal constitution is toxic,
but basically we are already there. What is left to do is to remove the
opt-outs and other exceptional treatment afforded to certain states. 

> I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrative
> boundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smaller
> countries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities,
> and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countries
> pool their defense with one group, and their currency with another.
> Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographic
> thinking. We can do better than that.

The EU has laws with direct effect, which override national laws. This
pooling of capabilities you refer to would not have any laws of its own
- only treaties between countries, which may implement certain measures
in their national laws as a consequence. The EU is not like that, it has
its own laws, that our representatives get to vote on. 

On the other hand, if you are actually questioning the inclusion of
administrative boundaries in OSM as a basic principle, that would be a
different can of worms entirely. 

> Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to map
> the outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of the
> EU states.

The Schengen region is DEFINITELY not an admin boundary. It does not
actually exist in a tangible form, only as EU law and treaties of
association on paper. It covers only part of the EU, and several non-EU
territories.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Sören alias Valor Naram
> Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier thanseceding from a country.I don't follow this reasoning since some people will always leave their country behind and begin a new life somewhere else. That was just how the US was founded, founded by ones from Europe mostly who broke up with their formally country in the hope of a better life.And quitting the EU is not easy because in a democracy it is not easy to gain the single vote of a majority e.g. to leave the EU. And also the complexity of the contracts with the EU don't make this easy. See United Kingdom and they don't have the problem of having to switch currency since they use their own one already.I would rather say that the EU is a suber administrative boundary which belongs to OSM as a relation with admin_level=1 with all the EU countries as its members.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?From: Frederik Ramm To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: Hi,On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote:> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes> of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament> and justicial branches impacting citizens directly.To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is ahigher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries havedecided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities tothe EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form ofsuper-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier thanseceding from a country.I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrativeboundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smallercountries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities,and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countriespool their defense with one group, and their currency with another.Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographicthinking. We can do better than that.Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to mapthe outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of theEU states.ByeFrederik-- Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote:
> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
> of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament
> and justicial branches impacting citizens directly.

To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a
higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have
decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to
the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of
super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than
seceding from a country.

I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrative
boundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smaller
countries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities,
and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countries
pool their defense with one group, and their currency with another.
Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographic
thinking. We can do better than that.

Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to map
the outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of the
EU states.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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


Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-30 Thread Paul Allen
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe 
wrote:

>
> Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me.
>

The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part
orchard,
was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll
change it.

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-07-30 12:26, Alan Mackie wrote:

> IMO the logic behind putting the EU as admin_level=1 would have meant that 
> the United States of America, the USSR and Australia would have been made 
> admin_level=1 when they were formed from their preceding entities (if OSM had 
> existed at those times).  
> 
> I would suggest that contrary to the preceding thread: if and when the EU 
> becomes as unified as the above examples it would make more sense to put the 
> EU as a whole as admin_level=2 and add one to all boundaries of the states 
> and subareas already mapped within it.

There's nothing magic about the actual numbers of course. It's about the
relationships between the levels in a hierarchy, some measure of  global
uniformity and consistency, and also about parallel hierarchies which
may or may not be related to each other. 

The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament
and justicial branches impacting citizens directly. I would say it
deserves a place in the OSM admin hierarchy, at a higher level than the
member states; admin_level=1 is the obvious choice.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-30 Thread joost schouppe
Hi,

Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me. I've looked into both the
wiki and the tagging archives, but it all turned up dry. Anyone aware of
previous discussions or relevant documentation?

For context, I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening
https://communityfoodforests.com/community-food-forests-map/

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


Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread ael
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:40:58PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> > On 30. Jul 2020, at 10:39, ael  wrote:
> > 
> > often without survey, and then do not update the source, so 
> > that tag becomes completely misleading.
> 
> that’s what happens all the time. When I edit things that already have a 
> source tag (generally source=Bing) I am removing it, as it is not valid any 
> more. I thought it was established practice that sources belong to edits and 
> not to objects 

Only because, as you say, the source tag is misused. I admit that
extending tags is not very widely done, and some people seem to have
trouble parsing ";" which I use as a separator. But my tags generally
look like source=first;second;... when appropriate. I only delete
sections of the source when the original corresponding data has been
completely revised. That is quite common in the UK where some origianl
rough & ready mapping was done from old maps (NPR, etc). When that has
been completely reworked, then the original source=NPR; component can
be deleted.

> There’s a reason why source tags on objects are discouraged. To make sense of 
> them you have to dig into the object history anyway. Too many people just 
> keep/ignore the source tags regardless of their own edits.

Surely it is better to educate people who perhaps don't realise how to
extend or modify tags? Mind you, I would always want people to check
history in any nontrivial cases. Easy in josm: I don't know about other
editors.

Perhaps we mean "source_history" instead of "source"?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 30. Jul 2020, at 10:39, ael  wrote:
> 
> often without survey, and then do not update the source, so 
> that tag becomes completely misleading.


that’s what happens all the time. When I edit things that already have a source 
tag (generally source=Bing) I am removing it, as it is not valid any more. I 
thought it was established practice that sources belong to edits and not to 
objects 

There’s a reason why source tags on objects are discouraged. To make sense of 
them you have to dig into the object history anyway. Too many people just 
keep/ignore the source tags regardless of their own edits.

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Alan Mackie
IMO the logic behind putting the EU as admin_level=1 would have meant that
the United States of America, the USSR and Australia would have been made
admin_level=1 when they were formed from their preceding entities (if OSM
had existed at those times).

I would suggest that contrary to the preceding thread: if and when the EU
becomes as unified as the above examples it would make more sense to put
the EU as a whole as admin_level=2 and add one to all boundaries of the
states and subareas already mapped within it.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 10:40, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 30.07.20 11:19, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > Unlike such objects EU has (AFAIK) well defined border, matching
> > existing administrative boundaries, so problems inherent in
> > mapping fuzzy objects are not present.
>
> I'm not an expert on international treaties but I believe that if France
> bought Alaska from the US tomorrow, then Alaska would become part of the
> EU, without the EU having much of a say in it, isn't that so?
>
> This is of course a very hypothetical example but little swaps of
> un-inhabited land happen between neighbouring countries from time to
> time. The "EU boundary" is the sum of whatever national boundaries its
> member states have. Same with the "Schengen area" which is guarded by
> Frontex which you linked to; it's a construct that is the result of a
> contract but not an administrative area.
>
> > I am not opposing it and it seems defensible.
>
> Anything is, on this mailing list ;)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 30.07.20 11:19, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Unlike such objects EU has (AFAIK) well defined border, matching
> existing administrative boundaries, so problems inherent in
> mapping fuzzy objects are not present.

I'm not an expert on international treaties but I believe that if France
bought Alaska from the US tomorrow, then Alaska would become part of the
EU, without the EU having much of a say in it, isn't that so?

This is of course a very hypothetical example but little swaps of
un-inhabited land happen between neighbouring countries from time to
time. The "EU boundary" is the sum of whatever national boundaries its
member states have. Same with the "Schengen area" which is guarded by
Frontex which you linked to; it's a construct that is the result of a
contract but not an administrative area.

> I am not opposing it and it seems defensible.

Anything is, on this mailing list ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Jul 30, 2020, 09:44 by frede...@remote.org:

> in my view, the EU is not an administrative body with a border and many
> parts (countries), but instead the countries have made a contract to
> form the EU.
>
EU is in a weird state where it is sort of organization of countries
sort of administrative body with borders.

see mentioned Lisbon treaty see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Border_and_Coast_Guard_Agency


> I would therefore object to mapping the EU as an entity with a boundary;
>
I am not opposing it and it seems defensible.

> I know there's a tendency among some mappers to try and map
> multipolygons or administrative boundaries for anything that has a name,
> but that practice is not helpful. I don't even dare to look but I
> wouldn't be surprised if some helpful soul has meanwhile decided to map
> "the Atlantic", "the Pacific", or "Eurasia", assembling thousands of
> little coastline pieces into giant relations in painstaking, week-long
> work... sigh.
>
Unlike such objects EU has (AFAIK) well defined border, matching
existing administrative boundaries, so problems inherent in
mapping fuzzy objects are not present.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Rory McCann

On 30/07/2020 09:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:

in my view, the EU is not an administrative body with a border and many
parts (countries), but instead the countries have made a contract to
form the EU.


The Treaty of Lisbon gave the EU it's own “legal personality”, so the 
EU, as a body itself is now able to sign international treaties etc.


But since there's only 1 EU, I don't see the pupose of putting it into 
OSM. Anyone who needs that data can create it easily.


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


Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread ael
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:55:45AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> > On 26. Jul 2020, at 23:58, ael  wrote:
> > 
> > Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense.
> > Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps,
> > photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery...
> > So the source data needs to be fine grained on the elements themselves.
> 
> maybe you should upload more often and less things at a time. I sometimes add 
> several sources like aerial imagery and survey to the same changeset. FWIW, I 
> believe the most relevant information is: di you know the area (local 
> knowledge or not) and have you been there to gather the information you are 
> adding or is it based on aerial imagery.
 
When I am mapping new areas, it is often simple, but when updating
(almost always from gps surveys) things get complex. I often notice
adjoing ways & features are missing, poorly mapped or whatever, so there
I may use imagery as an interim measure. Likewise for inaccessible
places. For existing elements I almost always check the history to see
what sort of status the existing information has. A changeset comment
listing all the various sources isn't going to help unless I have a new
changeset for almost every way. The source tag solves the problem.
> > Furthermore, when updating an element, I can see any source tags right
> > there.
>  
> and what are you doing with them when you modify the object? Do you keep 
> them, remove them, amend them, change them?

Amend and expand. It annoys me when other mappers come along and change
data, often without survey, and then do not update the source, so 
that tag becomes completely misleading. These are the same sort of mappers
who replace high quality surveyed data with armchair guesses,
downgrading the map:-(

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 20:15 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> > > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow  > > > wrote:
> > > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in
> > > height. Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or
> > > equal to 10cm
> > 
> > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> > like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
> 
> You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
> there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10
> cm,
> because both are impassable.

Wheelchairs have a large rear wheel so that they can be tilted just so
that they can get over kerbs. They have no problem crossing typical
raised kerbs. 25 cm is a bit excessive for a kerb.

Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-07-30 at 01:45 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height.
> > Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to
> > 10cm
> 
> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”

That sounds more like a sunken wall than a kerb :)

At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
crossing them.

In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek
I have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
experience normal.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

in my view, the EU is not an administrative body with a border and many
parts (countries), but instead the countries have made a contract to
form the EU.

I would therefore object to mapping the EU as an entity with a boundary;
instead, if it were mapped, I would expect it to be a relation of
yet-to-be-defined type and having the individual member states as
relation members.

I know there's a tendency among some mappers to try and map
multipolygons or administrative boundaries for anything that has a name,
but that practice is not helpful. I don't even dare to look but I
wouldn't be surprised if some helpful soul has meanwhile decided to map
"the Atlantic", "the Pacific", or "Eurasia", assembling thousands of
little coastline pieces into giant relations in painstaking, week-long
work... sigh.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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