Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

indoor swimming pools (for example public > swimming pools used for swimming lessons)? Yes. With indoor facilities it is of course not usually possible to see if they qualify as water_park without having been there but there are definitely also many very basic indoor swimming pool facilities that

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

lify as such or not (which would be commonly called 'Erlebnisbad'). Since leisure=swimming_pool is rendered in the standard style in blue it is not widely used for tagging things other than the pool itself. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ __

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

it is rendered in the standard style - might make sense to also render amenity=public_bath to avoid this. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Friday 06 November 2015, Paul Johnson wrote: > Stop rendering this key and instead render the relations Is there *any* map style that does this at the moment? AFAIK osm2pgsql does not support including relation membership info in the rendering database. -- Christoph Hormann h

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

o the space constraints in urban environments. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

and pipelines without a pipe' underground. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

You'd loose this distinction with waterway=penstock. Generally waterway=* characterizes the water and its flow while the term 'penstock' identifies a man made infrastructure. Your tagging suggestion mixes these two separate concepts into one tag which can be confusing f

Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging

have no way to decide how treat such feature. It would just say 'this waterway is tubed' not what kind of waterway it is (artificial/natural, clean/dirty water etc.) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Taggin

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a salt flat

than a combination of all of them (which is what natural=salt_flat would imply). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a salt flat

es + salt=yes would be right, otherwise there is no well matching established tagging. You could of course think about tagging it geological=salt_pan but it might not be such a good idea to make the dominance of salt the defining criterion here - the more generic term would be 'dry l

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

y this ponor. Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM - natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable. You can and should map the surface phenomena related to the underground water flow of course - ponors, dolines, karst springs and other stuf

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit: surface=soil to surface=dirt

ning tracks of a car driving across a wayless area to a solidly built gravel road. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street area

nging it into a form of a suitable tagging proposal (see other successful proposals from the past for some hints) before formally starting the RFC. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstre

Re: [Tagging] HOT: potential Helicopter landings leisure=common

nation (not an approval): > It started as tagging for the end-users because GIS people and pilots > were looking for leisure=common for unofficial landing sites in some > places such as West Africa. And that by the way is the very definition of cargo cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

sed to indicate tags that are vague in definition. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

ormulation there was somewhat ambiguous. I think it was meant to indicate a way waterway=river is required to be mapped within the waterway=riverbank polygon but not that its location must be exact. I clarified this in the wiki. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

e river system structure. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

ons you should not import the data unless you produce the information in some way (either through manual mapping, computing the missing data or getting it from other sources). Otherwise the data becomes dead mass in the OSM database. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ __

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

known and reserve waterway=wadi - despite the then misleading key - for valleys where waterflow is unknown. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

ntermittent=yes, seasonal=no although i don't think past imports of NHD data have made this distinction. waterway=wadi can mean either intermittent or ephemeral or permanently dry, see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dwadi -- Christoph Hormann h

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

needed again. In total analyzing 30k-40k airports would not be such a big deal. But doing this again for every zoom level and repeatedly near the metatile boundaries would hurt of course. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagg

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

y good criterion for importance and it is very widely available already (35551 nodes aeroway=aerodrome with 31752 ways aeroway=runway). The problem here is not having this information mapped i think but querying it from the rendering database. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imag

Re: [Tagging] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.23.0

times at the moment, guest_house=bed_and_breakfast 154 times. Generally given the huge influence the standard style has on mapping and that a lot of people articulated the need to differenciate between B&B and larger guest houses in discussions i agree this change indeed is probably not to the better.

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

splines) based on the nodes and the surrounding coastlines and place the text along them. The main problem is that spatial database systems are not well suited for this kind of work (i.e. tasks like 'find the closest coastline in a certain direction'). -- Christoph Hormann http:/

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

the area outline would be formed by coastline. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

coastal landforms dominated by mangrove. Technically you might also consider the inner bay a lagoon rather than a bay. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

appropriate by the mapper). If you want to formulate a formal mathematical rule for where the node for a bay is best placed: Place it so the variance of the distance of the node to the bay's shores is minimized. Most existing nodes comply with this rule remarkably well. --

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

? > > Yes, and like everything that can be mapped as a polygon: > amenity=hospital, leisure=pitch, natural=wood, etc etc etc. as well as highway=*, waterway=*, natural=tree... -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

around and out to open water for a similar distance, maybe somewhat further, is a bay and is named ... This is a much more accurate description of reality than a polygon. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Taggi

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

the ease of rendering labels. > (in other words, not treat them > any different than any other area-like obbjects in osm). You mean like place=town, place=city etc? SCNR. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

ular the case of small islands within a bay deserves consideration. > Some coastline ways would belong to more relations, so what ? They > already usually belong to 3-4 administrative boundary relations, Yes - and boundary relations are well known to be constantly broken and a pain to maintai

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

at bay. If you want to edit the coastline in such situation you would end up having to deal with a handful of convoluted multipolygon relations, some of them of colossal size. Properly editing coastlines is difficult for beginners in the first place. This would make it borderline impossi

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

ucht). This argument by the way was already made in a slightly different context in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/804 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Problem with rendering natural=saddle

xample this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2001818936 has an east-west orientation when you look at it closely but on a coarse scale it is a north-south crossing. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@opens

Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock

qualify as natural=bare_rock in total even if locally there is exposed bedrock of course. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock

to remap the area from scratch. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Antarctic_Digital_Database [2] http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/land_cover.pdf -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openst

Re: [Tagging] Tagging-rendering relations

ing substantial about the peak in question. I am sorry if this sounds like a rant but there are simply so many tags used a lot but completely useless in terms of informational value exactly because of this. Please just make sure you do not fall into this trap with your peak=* concept. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Enhancing natural=peak tag

rea, usually the favorite city of the one making the style decision. Choose a different area where the map scale is different or the geographic setting leads to a different distribution of POIs and things fall apart quickly. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Enhancing natural=peak tag

utomatically in principle but doing this in the general case is very expensive so it would make sense to record this information in the database. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.op

Re: [Tagging] editing polygons in JOSM

basic boolean operation on polygons. If you have a large multipolygon with like a hundred ways in it you want to cut in two for example this is quite cumbersome and error prone at the moment. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mai

Re: [Tagging] natural=cloud

of course these areas have no sharp boundaries. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Coastline-River transit placement

f the coastline matching the UNCLOS > baseline. Under the proposed rules an argument could be made for placing the coastline near Montevideo. Buenos Aires could well be considered to be located at the river rather than the coast although the transit could also be placed further upstream of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Coastline-River transit placement

rt from that fast flowing rivers can reduce the salinity quite far out into the ocean. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Coastline-River transit placement

. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canal banks

of the problems with waterbody tagging is that there ia no clear criterion to distinguish between lakes and rivers/riverbanks. The new tagging scheme acknowledges this and makes the distinction optional. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___

Re: [Tagging] Canal banks

With waterway=riverbank you have to find the corresponding centerline first (assuming it exists). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Related: Antarctic territories

and in terms of individual territorial claims (which are obviously limited to the normal territorial waters). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

etermine except at a measurement station where it would make more sense to tag the node. If someone has an idea for a practically measurable quantity that has a clear relation to the discharge of a river that would be useful to tag of course. Greetings, -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagic

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

roken boundary relations maybe). Greetings, -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

ould be an obvious choice although it could be useful to make the distinction natural/artificial waterway indeed mandatory). Greetings, -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] [NUUG kart] kartverket imports to OpenStreetMap

g narrow and deep in a narrow valley further downstream). And even if you'd change the definition of river/stream to represent importance this could never be locally verifiable and globally consistent at the same time. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ __

Re: [Tagging] Mapping large areas (was natural=????)

y seen as desert since aridity depends as much on evaporation as it does on precipitation. Greetings, -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=????

s only play a minor role it could be classified as montane grassland and shrubland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montane_grassland_and_shrubland This is however a very broad and anything but clearly defined classification so hardly suited for tagging. Greetings, -- Christoph Horma

Re: [Tagging] natural=????

indicate continuous vegetation cover. > Here is a typical bit of low > elevation vegetation in the same area: > > http://www.californiachaparral.com/images/555_PS-A-White-Ceanothus.jp >g This already goes in direction of scrub - in fact the distinction between scrub and h

Re: [Tagging] natural=????

rly map deserts. But i agree that there is a lack of established taggings for xeromorph vegetation which might explain some uses of natural=desert. Greetings, -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@op

Re: [Tagging] natural=????

thogonal to the existing natural=wood| scrub|grassland|heath since it does not specify what grows there but instead says why it grows there (because it's beyond the alpine/arctic treeline). In this way it would be similar to natural=wetland (or the infamous natural=desert

Re: [Tagging] deprecate water=intermittent and water=tidal

ermittent=yes/no makes much more sense for waterbodies than water=intermittent. Greetings, -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

<    1   2   3   4