Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
+1 Gesendet:Mittwoch, 11. Mrz 2015 um 08:13 Uhr Von:Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com An:Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Betreff:Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type There are 533413 elements with the leaf_type key. Only 83 of them have the value palm. This are 0.0156% and certainly not widely used at all! I suppose you want to make a mechanical edit to change the existing 13 056 elements with type=palm. But you would change the description of leaf_type=*. You would destroy the clean description of a clean and well-defined key. An important reasons for the introduction of leaf_type=* was that the previous solutions were too complex, not well coordinated, too detailed and thought didnt work well. leaf_type=* is an effort to keep things simple and clear. Its not good to break this. You should not change the description of leaf_type=*. You should use leaf_type=broadleaved and if you want add some other tag to make a more exact description. 2015-03-11 4:54 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:01 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: There are places where there are an amazing mount of Palm trees, and confusing them with a broadleaf tree is not great. But is this the main way the species (or class or whatever) of tree is defined? I thought there was some species tag for this as well - or is it too difficult when mapping to know the type of tree beyond its leaf? There are species and genus tags, but many mappers wont be able to fill that those. Palm on the other hand is easy, and makes a great map symbol also. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Lukas Sommer ___ 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] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
I oppose this suggestion. The key:leaf_type should be as simple as possible. Palms are included in leaf_type=broadleaved. The values relate to the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) by FAO. I dont know any classification systems with leaf_type=palm. To refine the tagging you can use key:species or key:genus or key:taxon. Im not sure which will fit the best. Gesendet:Dienstag, 10. Mrz 2015 um 21:41 Uhr Von:Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com An:Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Betreff:[Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type Im seeking comments on adding palm to the leaf types at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type A rendering engine can equate palm and broadleaved. Mappers are mapping palms very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - leaf_type and leaf_cycle
The voting is finished. There are 27 approvals, 2 rejections, 3 abstentions. Therefore the proposal is approved. Thanks to all voters. Now it's up to you, to improve the usage of the new keys. A good point is updating the relating wiki-pages, especially in different languages. Another point is the changing of elements that you have mapped yourself. Rudolf Am 23.05.2014 18:36:35 schrieb(en) Rudolf Martin: I startet the voting for the proposal: - leaf_type=* describes the type of leaves, such as broadleaved or needleleaved. - leaf_cycle=* describes the phenology of leaves, such as evergreen or deciduous. Please give your vote at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leaftype ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - leaf_type and leaf_cycle
--Reminder-- The voting to leaf_type and leaf_cycle ends next friday. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leaftype Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - leaf_type and leaf_cycle
Hi all, I startet the voting for the proposal: - leaf_type=* describes the type of leaves, such as broadleaved or needleleaved. - leaf_cycle=* describes the phenology of leaves, such as evergreen or deciduous. Please give your vote at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leaftype Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leaf_type and leaf_cycle
Hi all, there are several tags to indicate vegetation with leaves, e.g. landuse=forest, natural=wood, natural=scrub, natural=tree and others. Today we have one additional key wood= to describe the type of leaves. This key is arguable. The oxford dictionary says: wood = 1. The hard fibrous material that forms the main substance of the trunk or branches of a tree or shrub. 2. (also woods) An area of land, smaller than a forest, that is covered with growing trees. The usage of ''wood='' for the type of leaves is not suitable because wood relates to the trunc, not to the leaves. Maybe it is suitable for natural=wood, but the key also relates to forest, trees, hedges and shrubs. The values wood=coniferous and wood=deciduous are ambiguous. ''Coniferous'' describes the kind of seeds, not the type of leaves, nor the phenology. ''Deciduous'' describes the phenology, not the type of leaves, but it seems that it is used for the leaftype. ''Coniferous'' stand for cone-bearing seed plants with vascular tissue. This plants are mostly needle-leafed, but there also exist some with broad leaves. There is also the value wood=evergreen to describe the phenology, but not the kind of leaves. This applies to needle-leaved and broad-leaved plants. Other values are ''palm'', ''nipa_palm'', ''eucalypt'', ''filao'' and ''casuarina''. There is no tagging for evergreen broad-leaved plants (e.g. most trees in the rain forest), nor for deciduous needle-leaved plants (e.g. larchs). It is very complicated to include all combinations of leave type and phenology in one key, especially in consideration that the phenology is not known in every case. We need two distinct keys to describe the type and phenology of leaves, suitable for all kind of plants and all kind of keys. It is advantageous to use new keys, to avoid confusion with changing values of an already used key. Proposal: leaf_type= describes the type of leaves, such as broad-leaved or needle-leaved. leaf_cycle= describes the phenology of leaves, such as evergreen or deciduous. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leaftype Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water
Today I start the voting. Voters are welcome. Rudolf Am 02.04.2014 22:18:07 schrieb(en) Rudolf Martin: Hi, according to the discussion in the mailinglist I cancel the former proposal drinkable and start a new proposal drinking_water. We can transfer drinkable= to drinking_water=. The future tagging- scheme will have only one tag to indicate the existence and quality of drinking water. In the future the tag drinkable= can be deprecated. Comments are welcome. Rudolf ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water
Today I start the voting. Voters are welcome. Rudolf http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/drinking_water ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water
Ready to vote? Other than former discussions about drinking water there are not many comments to this proposal. Should I start a voting or cancel the proposal due to lacking interest? A voting, without voters is not desirable. What do you think? Rudolf Am 02.04.2014 22:18:07 schrieb(en) Rudolf Martin: Hi, according to the discussion in the mailinglist I cancel the former proposal drinkable and start a new proposal drinking_water. We can transfer drinkable= to drinking_water=. The future tagging- scheme will have only one tag to indicate the existence and quality of drinking water. In the future the tag drinkable= can be deprecated. Comments are welcome. Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
Hi, according to this discussion I cancel the former proposal drinkable and start a new proposal drinking_water. We can transfer drinkable= to drinking_water=. The future tagging- scheme will have only one tag to indicate the existence and quality of drinking water. In the future the tag drinkable= can be deprecated. Comments are welcome. Rudolf Am 27.02.2014 07:18:57 schrieb(en) Rudolf Martin: Hallo, the tag drinkable= is used more than 3000 times. Up today there is no clear definition about the values of this tag. I made a proposal with some possible values, according to some discussions in this mailinglist and some threads in the osm forum. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/drinkable Feel free to discuss. Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
I'm thinking about transfering my proposal drinkable to a new proposal drinking_water. The proposed values can be the same. This means migration of drinkable=yes/no to drinking_water=yes/no. The new tagging-scheme use one tag for standalone features that can provide drinking water and to indicate whether water is drinkable for humans. It don't include a legal relevance. Then drinkable= will be deprecated. Up to now there is no approval and no wiki-page about drinkable. So we mustn't change a definition-page in the wiki. All changes refers to elements that already contains a hint to drinkable=. Up to now there is no approval about drinking_water. We mustn't change an approved definition. I don't prefer potable, because it is not in common use in OSM. What do you think? Going on with the existing scheme or making a new one? Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
Am 27.02.2014 15:28:13 schrieb(en) Vincent Pottier: What about drinking_water used also more than 3000 times ? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drinkable (~3300) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drinking_water (~3100) It seems that today drinkable=* is on standalone watering objects (fountains, springs...) and drinking_water=* is on other amenities or objects (shelter, toilets...). It seems also that the values should be the same. And it seems that drinking_water=* would fit both standalone objects and other objects, rather than drinkable. What do you think of amenity=toilets + drinkable=yes ? But in contrast, amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes sounds good. So I would be in favour of a single drinking_water tag having 6400 occurrences and a migration from drinkable to drinking_water tags. It is easy to migrate softly the drinkable to drinking_water by duplicating the tags in a first time and make the first obsolete. That's an interesting idea. No objection from me. I see a little problem in the legal relevance. IMHO drinkable=yes has no legal relevance. It means the water is drinkable, even without official control. Water that is checked by public authorities can get the tagging drinkable=official. The tag drinking_water=yes implicates somehow a legal relevance. I would like to tag a spring in the mountains with drinkable=yes, although you will never get a official clearance for this source of water. Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable
Hallo, the tag drinkable= is used more than 3000 times. Up today there is no clear definition about the values of this tag. I made a proposal with some possible values, according to some discussions in this mailinglist and some threads in the osm forum. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/drinkable Feel free to discuss. Rudolf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
