Re: [Tagging] eelgrass

2019-12-20 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM via Tagging
Apologies for top-posting, but the interface in the browser does not enable me 
to make any sense of multiple comments. Anyway here goes:
Zostera (eel-grass) grows below the tide line, so really is not an emergent 
plant. Other things in your list of aquatic bed vegetation are also not usually 
apparent on the surface (e.g., Chara). Some such as Kelp will be visible at the 
lowest tides. I don't think any of these sensibly qualify for the current 
natural=wetland tag, which implicitly connotes emergent vegetation typically on 
a land surface which can dry out. Some emergent vegetation will have it's foot 
in the water, but water depth will be shallow (typical Phragmites beds). I'd 
suggest considering a new tag for submerged vegetation in marine environments.
At this point I'm not sure about freshwater vegetation which is totally 
submerged (but see below).
For the detailed US classification of wetlands, this is what the 
plant_community tag is there for: more detailed, more scientifically precise 
categories. Obviously many of these are not easy for the average mapper to 
identify, but when information is available it is often a good way of enhancing 
the base tagging. I think there is also a US National Vegetation 
Classification. I've documented some parts of the UK equivalent, including one 
of the types of Alder Carr (equivalent to your Alder meadow).
Phragmites does grow in estuarine environments, with brackish water.
I learnt some years ago that German usage of reedbed (Rohr) includes other tall 
emergent plants: notably sedges (Carex), Cladium, reed-mace/cat's-tails 
(Typha), cane (Arundo) and club-rushes. PresumabThus the meaning of 
wetland=reedbed may well be wider than expected in some countries. One way to 
be sure is to add a dominant_taxon tag (e.g., Phragmites australis, Carex, 
Typha etc).
As for floating water plants (which I would not particularly class as emergent, 
including water-lilies) they can have odd life cycles. Some living on the bed 
of the water body when dormant and later floating during the growth season 
(Water Soldier & Frogbit). There are certainly places in France where a carpet 
of Duckweed coats the waterways during the summer. Unlike Kelp & Eelgrass beds 
(one a significant carbon sink, the other increasingly threatened) I've never 
felt the need to map such things (they are seasonal, and usually quite small 
features). Even something like Water Hyacinth which does form large patches is 
likely to change because of control measures.
Jerry

In Wednesday, 18 December 2019, 22:25:50 GMT, Kevin Kenny 
 wrote:  
 
 On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:08 PM Clifford Snow  wrote:
>
> How should eelgrass[1] be tagged? I see that wetland=reedbed [2]  has been 
> used in tidal areas mainly in Europe but also in the US but they are two 
> different plants.

Perhaps wetland_class=emergent or wetland_class=aquatic_bed? (How does
the eelgrass grow in the area you're considering?)

Thus saith 'Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States' (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/classwet/index.html):

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/classwet/emergent.htm :
Definition. The Emergent Wetland Class is characterized by erect,
rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This
vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years.
These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. All water
regimes are included except subtidal and irregularly exposed.


https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/classwet/aquatic.htm
Definition. The Class Aquatic Bed includes wetlands and deepwater
habitats dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the
surface of the water for most of the growing season in most years.
Water regimes include subtidal, irregularly exposed, regularly
flooded, permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, semipermanently
flooded, and seasonally flooded.

Aquatic beds further divide into algal (e.g., kelp, rockweed,
stoneword), moss (e.g. Fisseidens, Fontinalis), rooted vascular
(Zostera would fall in this category), and floating vascular
(duckweed, water lettuce, water hyacinth, water-nut (Trapa), water
fern (Salvinia), bladderwort, and so on).

Rooted vascular aquatic beds occur in marine, estuarine, riverine,
lacustrine and palustrine systems

Some species, such as the water lily Nuphar luteum, are hard to
classify between 'aquatic bed' and 'emergent', since it usually grows
as lily pads, but occasionally stands erect above the water surface.
Some of the eelgrasses have the same difficulty in classifying.

The categories are always going to be fuzzy around the edges.

USFWS would therefore label your eelgrass bed - if I understand
correctly what you're trying to label - as "Marine, subtidal, aquatic
bed, rooted vascular"  while a typical reedbed might be "palustrine,
emergent wetland, persistent, dominant vegetation Phragmites spp." and
a typical alder meadow near me could be "palustrine, scrub-shrub
wetland, 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

2018-10-21 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
  
It looks as though the key in use is diplomatic in conjunction with 
amenity=embassy.
 
There are several mapped in the Brazilian city of Curitiba. The reason I'm 
aware of these was that a friend was the Polish consul during the early 1990s.
 
Jerry
On 21/10/2018 18:01, Allan Mustard wrote:
  
 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Consulate
 
Consular representation of a foreign country in a host country as defined by 
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
 

 
 

 
 

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


Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

2018-09-24 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
 

On 24/09/2018 07:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
  
 
 Right! Especially on my island, New Guinea.  
  That’s why we need to check the height of saddles and peaks “by hand”, or 
better yet by survey with GPS.  
  OSM is the right place for this data, and some map styles and database users 
will find it useful to analyze data about mountain areas and peaks. 
  For example, even those lists of “tallest peaks” actually use topographic 
prominence as a cutoff. Otherwise the highest peaks on Earth would all be rocks 
and bumps on the slopes of Everest.  
  Most of us just estimate the prominence of a peak intuitively, before 
choosing to add one to the map. Clearly, a 5 meter tall bump isn’t a peak. 
Perhaps a 10 meter rise may have a name in England or Denmark, where mountains 
are scare. In other contexts a peak won’t be named unless it is 100m or 200m 
above the nearest saddle on a ridge.  
  Joseph 
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:59 PM Yves  wrote:
  
I don't see no issue in mapping prominence for those interested in.
 Just to mention for the sake of the discussion that 'sufficiently accurate 
DEM' doesn't exists globally.
 Yves ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
   
  
 ___Tagging mailing 
listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging A 
few points on this thread: * Prominence has been added for every significant 
peak in Scotland (along with which hill-bagging group they are members of). The 
peaks called Marilyns (a play on the more famous Munros - peaks over 3000 ft) 
are entirely based on prominence, and are sufficiently well known in the UK to 
have a guidebook. Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Cbi * What Michael 
describes sounds very much like something close to topographic isolation 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation). Co-incidentally I looked 
at calculating something like this after a recent conversation with Stefan 
Keller (prompted by a wikipage on Dominance: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Maxbe/Dominanz_von_Gipfeln). I simply 
calculated the closest, higher peaks for all Swiss peaks and then filtered by 
that distance (e.g. over 5 or 10 km). This produces a reasonably good 
distribution of peaks (see 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qoe2y9d6n6pjh0c/ch_peak_iso.jpg?dl=0), and can 
obviously be adjusted by other parameters. * One problem with prominence is 
that it is probably most easily obtained from non-open sources (such as those 
used to populate wikipedia), and equally there is temptation to use copyright 
maps for information on saddle points. For the peaks with a very significant 
prominence (say 1000 m or more) this is less of a problem as most can be 
deduced very quickly. * Peak names can be an issue when the high point is part 
of a group of peaks with an encompassing name (Dufourspitze Monte Rosa, 
Breithorn Occidentale/Westgipfel comes to mind). The Matterhorn traditionally 
has 2 summits (the Swiss & Italian ones), but only one is mapped, avoiding this 
issue for that peak.
  * Many peaks which sit on national boundaries are not on located as part of 
the border way on OSM, and may therefore not be included in peaks with a 
country filter. There are several examples near Zermatt. Thanks to Kevin Kenny 
& others who have pointed out the theoretical value of prominence. Jerry
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

2018-07-24 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
 On 23/07/2018 14:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote


  
 it does not seem to be a very promising concept though. Terraced houses are 
usually seen as a compromise for people who want an independent house, but 
cannot afford a detached one. Terraced houses are cheaper because they need 
less ground (i.e. you can usually find them where the ground is expensive to 
buy), expensive ground means you’ll try to use it intensively, which is 
contradicting the bungalow concept.Terraced houses are almost always narrow, 
deep and relatively high.Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses 
there could be a cultural interest in something like terraced bungalows and 
there is also an energetic advantage from reducing external walls, but overall 
there’s little danger this will become a widespread concept for housing. 
Cheers,Martin ___Tagging mailing 
listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
 An unwise generalisation. Some of the most expensive houses in the UK are 
terraced houses (see Stefan Muthesius "The English Terraced House"). Notable 
examples can be found in Belgravia, Regent's Park, Edinburgh New Town, Regency 
Bath, and many other cities. I can also think of examples in Paris, e.g., Place 
des Vosges. The UK is probably unusual in that terraced houses were built for 
all classes over around a couple of hundred years (roughly 1700 to 1900). 
  At the opposite end of the spectrum, back-to-back terraced houses still exist 
in several places, notably Beeston, a suburb of Leeds (see for instance this 
blog). Thus a plain building=terrace may be inadequate for many purposes (from 
identifying less-well of housing areas, to locating specific types of houses).
  On the actual tagging: it's certainly useful in the UK to distinguish between 
detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. As has been pointed out 
building:levels=1 may be an adequate synonym for bungalow, but there also exist 
"chalet bungalows" which have bedrooms in the roof (usually with dormer 
windows), and certainly I see many detached and semi-detached bungalows. Other 
housing types which may be highly UK specific are : mews houses (found behind 
the grander types of terrace in London and Edinburgh and a few other places, 
and often very expensive); maisonettes, purpose built flats in a structure 
which looks like a house (no good description on wikipedia); (modern british 
usage of) town house, a terraced house with integral garage on the ground floor 
and most living accommodation on the upper floors; link-detached houses, the 
garages of adjacent houses completely fill the space between them.
 I dont have any generic solution to all this, other than to continue 
collecting data. Where I have been trying to precisely delineate very specific 
types of housing I'm using 'private' tags (in part because I need to do archive 
work to find the actual codes used by the architects). 
A commercial mapping provider gave a talk at Geomob about 3 years ago: they 
have something like 70 building classes to cover the spectrum of building types 
in British cities. I have their brochure, but have deliberately avoided 
examining it too closely in case of inadvertently copying their ideas.
 Jerry
      
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] passage only on low tide

2017-11-05 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
This seems a good place to use the hazard key. There are a limited number of 
instances of hazard=tide.
There's no reason why post-processing cannot append information about critical 
hazards to names for rendering purposes, and thus we could avoid the spurious 
information in the name tag.
J

  From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"  
 Sent: Sunday, 5 November 2017, 6:58
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] passage only on low tide
   



On 5 November 2017 at 13:46, Max  wrote:


I went with

causeway=yes
ford=tidal
tidal=yes

not sure how to say that the passable time frame is about 3 hours (with climate 
change it's getting shorter)..


How about Description: "Only passable 1.5 hours each side of low tide - check 
daily tide times", possibly with a link to online tide info?  
Thanks
Graeme___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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


Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

2017-10-05 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Can I contribute to this debate?
AFAIK I invented memorial=war_memorial for the Project of the Week which 
coincided with 11th November 2010. I agonised a certain amount about the best 
tag (both because of issues mentioned here, and because it would apply to both 
historic=monument and historic=memorial). However, at the time there were next 
to no uses of the tag memorial. I did try and discuss this on IRC channels (eg 
with the Italian community) 
As it stands this represents around a third of instances of the key, and I 
believe pre-dates other classes of meanings for memorial (see 
http://taghistory.raifer.tech/ and type some typical values in). 
The original description page for the PotW makes it clear that the tag was 
intended for many different types of memorial (See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week/2010/Nov_10):
   
   - Walls
   - Gates (the Menin Gate)
   - Ossuaries (common in Italy)
   - Monuments (Vimy Ridge)
   - Simple village memorials
   - Public facilities (community halls, bridges etc)
   - Places dedicated as a war memorial: 2 large areas in the centre of the 
English Lake District including the highest peak in England
   - Arboreta

I am personally not very keen on deprecating tags which represent such a 
significant fraction of the total usage of a key, as it is in effect changing 
the meaning of the key in the database (as opposed to its description in the 
wiki). However I share the sense of awkwardness with the dual meanings implicit 
in the use of the key. In general such tags have been disambiguated by adding 
colons. I'm not at all sure about memorial:theme (a proper tabulation of likely 
values is needed), but memorial:form (or something similar for plaque, wall 
etc) is easier. Note that in many cases the object will not need the form to be 
described if it is a building, man made structure etc). 
My personal suggestions are:
   
   - memorial:commemorates with values of person; event; war (or conflict); 
building ...
   - just a simple war_memorial=yes (which perhaps fits better with the wide 
range of object which could be tagged).

As for arboreta, I have been wondering for some time about a garden tag for 
describing all the different features of large gardens, and arboreta are common 
features. The idea needs work, but would include arboretum, alpine, herbaceous, 
systematic & perennial beds, various kinds of glass houses, wild flower 
gardens, species collections etc.
Jerry

  From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2017, 5:27
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] war_memorial
   
 On 05-Oct-17 01:58 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
  
 Thanks everyone for your thoughts re arboretums 
  Why I brought this up - had a look at the historic=monument tag yesterday 
morning, which lead me to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CheckTheMonuments 
& http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html. 
  That showed 4 monuments in my general area, 2 of which should apparently be 
memorials, 1 I'm not sure about & this one: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.00759/153.38376. 
  The "Regional Arboretum" is shown as a monument &, by the conversations here, 
almost certainly shouldn't be (maybe it should be a Memorial? - will have to 
get up there & check it out on the ground); while the "ADF Grove" is, almost 
certainly correctly, a Memorial. 
  Now, if the Regional Arboretum isn't actually marked as being a memorial to 
anybody / thing, & therefore not a memorial, how should it then appear in OSM? 
The Botanic Gardens as a whole are shown as landuse=recreation_ground; 
leisure=park. From a Google satellite shot 
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0070891,153.3834806,174m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en,
 the Regional Arboretum is only an open group of trees, so how should it be 
mapped? 
  It's definitely not intended for forestry / logging purposes, so it's not 
landuse=forest 
  It's hardly a forest, so not natural=wood 
  Doesn't produce anything so not landuse=orchard 
  Leisure=garden? Garden brings to mind flowers & bushes, not trees, but I 
guess it may still apply? 
   
 
 Sydney Royal Botanic Garden is  tagged as
 leisure=garden
 garden:type=botanical
 
 Possibly 
 leisure=garden
 garden:type=arboretum?? 
 I think this is the best solution I have - not documented and no actual 
existence in the data base. 
 
 Way 21370319 (Nottingham Arboretum) is tagged as
 name=Arboretum
 leisure=park
 this looks wrong to me .. the name may just be a description. 
 
 The Australian Canberra arboretum is tagged as
 tourist=attraction 
 
 
 A quick look has arboretums tagged as 
 forest (!), conservation, grass (!), leisure=nature_reserve and probably other 
things. 
 
 Will be interesting to see where this goes.
 
 
 I have mapped some 'local' memorials/monuments ... 
 including one to a cat (Trim - Matthew Flinders cat), one to the WW1 
Australian horses. 
 
 
 

 
 

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: logo tag. Opinions?

2017-09-22 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Aren't the legal arguments insuperable?
Even if logos are held in Wikimedia commons I very much doubt that the licence 
on Wikimedia commons is accurate. Most large companies will defend the use of 
their brand image fiercely. 
In practice to use logos and other trademarks on a map one should get explicit 
permission from the owner of the logo. Yes it is done, for instance in shopping 
mall maps, but this will usually be covered by associated legal agreements.
An excellent example is the Transport for London roundel. This image says it is 
""It does not meet the threshold of originality needed ",  but below it notes 
that it may be a trademark in some jurisdictions. TfL on the other hand have 
very clear guidelines: Logo requestsand are known to be litigious.
I would therefore suggest adding explicit links to potentially 
copyright/trade-mark infringing material is not a good idea for OSM. Wikipedia 
may be large enough and have a good enough mind share for large companies to 
tolerate the presence of logos in the commons. It is not clear that this is the 
case for OSM: particularly as the most obvious use-case for logos is in maps of 
public transport networks.
So, although I sympathise with the idea, I'm very dubious about promoting it 
within OSM.
Jerry


  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Occupy London crowdsources new logo
   |   |

  |

  |

 

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Logo requests
 By Transport for London | Every Journey Matters Restrictions on using the TfL 
roundels.  |   |

  |

  |

 
  From: Philip Barnes 
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017, 13:18
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposal: logo tag. Opinions?
   
Ignoring the legal arguments for a moment, but what would OSM gain or do with 
this information. How would it help us build a better map?

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 19 September 2017 08:10:15 BST, SwiftFast  wrote:
The logo tag would link to a Logo of a company/organization/shop.

To avoid unreliable links, questionable licenses, and the rest of the
drawbacks of the "image"[1] tag, the value must link to a Wikimedia
Commons image. The value format is identical to the
wikimedia_commons[2] format.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:image
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons


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


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my 
brevity.___
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] farm schools?

2017-09-05 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM


  From: Tom Pfeifer 
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Monday, 4 September 2017, 22:56
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] farm schools?
   
On 04.09.2017 22:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 4. Sep 2017, at 21:45, José G Moya Y.  wrote:
>> In Spanish it is farm_school.
> in italian it's "fattoria didattica" (didactic farm), in German there are 
> different terms in use, e.g. Jugendfarm, Kinderbauernhof.

Hm, in Berlin we have some tagged as

landuse=farmyard + tourism=zoo + zoo=petting_zoo and some description.
This tagging style would have a focus on farm animals (vs. growing plants)

zoo=petting_zoo is currently defined as "Small zoo or garden for kids to touch 
and play with animals"

tom

Some are certainly small petting zoo type places (there used to be a tiny one 
at Bidmi, Oberhasli, CH used to entertain kids after skiiing lessons).
I'm not sure to what extent there are any working farms taking school visits as 
there were in my childhood. The places which seem closest in Nottinghamshire 
are the following:
   
   - White Post Farm. Originated as a petting zoo type place, but has been a 
fully fledged themed attraction for small kids for at least 20 years.   
 
  | 
  |  
  |  
  |  ||

   |

  |
  | 
  |  | 
OpenStreetMap | Way: ‪White Post Farm‬ (‪333264517‬)
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license. |   |

  |

  |



   - Floralands Farm Park. Adjunct to a large garden centre.   
 
  | 
  |  
  |  
  |  ||

   |

  |
  | 
  |  | 
OpenStreetMap | Way: ‪Floralands Farm Park‬ (‪53513306‬)
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license. |   |

  |

  |



   - Ferry Farm Park. I've just added more detail to this one.
   - Manor Farm, East Leake. (I have a feeling that was the one I went to back 
in 196x).   
 
  | 
  |  
  |  
  |  ||

   |

  |
  | 
  |  | 
OpenStreetMap | Way: ‪Manor Farm & Woodlands‬ (‪383289850‬)
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license. |   |

  |

  |


   
 
  | 
  |  
  |  
  |  ||

   |

  |
  | 
  |  | 
OpenStreetMap | Way: ‪Ferry Farm Country Park‬ (‪488431410‬)
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license. |   |

  |

  |



   - Stonebridge City Farm. This is located within an inner-city area, and is 
owned and run by the local council. It is meant to be both an education and 
leisure facility. Just mapped as attraction with farmland. I think there are 
other "city farms" in the UK, which could perhaps be tagged explicitly.   
   
 
  | 
  |  
  |  
  |  ||

   |

  |
  | 
  |  | 
OpenStreetMap | Way: ‪Stonebridge City Farm‬ (‪30802891‬)
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license. |   |

  |

  |



Many are tagged either tourism=attraction and attraction=farm_park or 
tourism=farm_park. Most are also tagged with farmland and/or farmyard landuse. 
Farm Park does seem to be the current favoured term for these, at least in this 
part of England. However, note that none of these is a working farm anymore: 
they are attractions with farm animals in a semi-zoo format along with various 
play facilities (pedal go-karts, soft-play and adventure playgrounds). If 'farm 
schools' elsewhere are an ancillary feature of working farms then I think the 
farm_park tag doesn't fit. City farms and the small petting 'zoo' farm features 
are different again.
Hope these additional data points are useful (and also that this email gets 
formatted properly: will repost if not),
Jerry


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:architecture:preromanesque

2017-08-25 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
First a comment on British usage. The main Romanesque period in Britain does 
start in the middle of C11 more-or-less coincident with the Norman Conquest. 
Although some large Romanesque churches were built earlier most were re-built 
in the decades following the conquest (e.g., Winchester), and thus there are 
few remains from earlier. Churches (pretty much the only surviving buildings) 
from earlier than around 1000 will be described as Anglo-Saxon (examples: 
Brixworth, Deerhurst (both a church & Odda's Chapel), Escomb). Most are small, 
Brixworth being the notable exception. In practical terms there is no Celtic 
architecture in Britain, unless one counts Brochs. In Ireland there are 
monastic buildings which perhaps could be assigned a Celtic designation: most 
have roofs made of corbelled stone and are therefore rather small (e.g., 
Skellig Michael).
Second: I was unfamiliar with the term pre-Romanesque, and would have expected 
buildings such as the abbeys at Mustair, Reichenau; the Carolingian chapel at 
Germingy-des-Pres to be included in the category. However the term does seem to 
be in widespread use (e.g., in my copy of Auvergene Romane). It's therefore 
certainly a good idea to document it (which you have already done).
Thirdly, I suspect using the locally well-known terms -  Anglo-Saxon, 
Carolingian, Mozarabic, Visigothic - may be more informative, and sometimes 
less complicated. For instance I'm not sure if the C7 Saxon churches truly 
belong to an early form of Romanesque or not; similarly for the baptistery at 
Poitiers. 
Notwithstanding these comments I would do as Andy says. By all means use a tag 
if it works for you. My only suggestion is that locally-named subsets should 
preferably be sub-tagged. Comparing English Anglo-Saxon Architecture with 
products of the Carolingian Renaissance may not be that useful.
Regards,
Jerry

  From: José G Moya Y. 
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Friday, 18 August 2017, 10:58
 Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:architecture:preromanesque
   
I propose this tag to describe middle age buildings created before the 
"romanesque revolution" of the 11th century. I guess english people would like 
something like "celtic", but I am using "preromanesque" instead of "celtic" 
because in Spain there is no "celtic" middle age architecture.
In my country, this tag could be used to describe "mozarabic" buildings along 
with "visigothic" buildings. I hope this be useful to other european countries, 
too.
Help from art historians would be useful to refine the proposal.
See the link here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap. org/wiki/Proposed_features/ building:architecture% 
3Dpreromanesque


Yours,
José Moya (Jose M)
El 18/8/2017 10:17, "José G Moya Y."  escribió:

I am proposed this tag to describe middle age buildings created before the 
"romanesque revolution" of the 11th century. I guess english people would like 
something like "celtic", but I am using "preromanesque" instead of "celtic" 
because in Spain there is no "celtic" middle age architecture.
In my country, this tag could be used to describe "mozarabic" buildings along 
with "visigothic" buildings. I hope this be useful to other european countries, 
too.
Help from art historians would be useful to refine the proposal.
See the link here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap. org/wiki/Proposed_features/ building:architecture% 
3Dpreromanesque


Yours,
José Moya (Jose M)
___
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] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

2017-06-16 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
We have plenty of examples of dispersed/scattered settlement patterns which 
have been mapped without having to worry about lack of tags: more or less the 
entire Celtic fringe of NW Europe (Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scottish 
Highlands) shows this settlement pattern. The nucleated towns of Ireland & 
Wales being introduced by settlers (invaders?) such as Vikings or Anglo-Saxons. 
In addition many mining areas in Wales show a later dispersed settlement 
pattern. The medieval administrative units (parishes) which have often ended up 
as contemporary admin units often have little correspondence with the actual 
settlement pattern and thus defining boundaries for toponyms may be difficult.
The exception, of course, are townlands in Ireland.. These are ancient bounded 
land units which are the primary descriptive toponyms in much or rural Ireland. 
These are all mapped as place=locality, but with an additional attributive tag 
locality=townland. I would see this as a precedent, and one could envisage 
locality=dispersed_settlement.
However, looking at Wales and Brittany, I think the nature of dispersed 
settlement is to create a finer grain of toponymy. Many villages in Wales which 
these days appear nucleated have origins as rather dispersed places, a good 
example which I know well is Llanfair PG on Anglesey. Within living memory 
(mine) the parts of the settlement were known as Pentre Uchaf & Pentre Isaf 
(Upper & Lower), and I think it's likely that many local toponyms of this sort 
were not recorded by map makers. Elsewhere in Wales places where members of the 
family lived tend to be referred to either by the name of the village/parish or 
by the name of the farm/house. For the most part the latter are not true 
toponyms in Britain.
In Brittany there are even signposts showing how to find all the localities of 
a commune in the chef-lieu (I have photos of some with perhaps 60 or so place 
names). These days many can be suitably tagged with place=hamlet, 
place=locality or possibly place=isolated_dwelling. Once again changes in the 
past 40 years or so obscure some of the more obvious features of these places 
(i.e., places which had a few farmsteads and no mains water or sanitation in 
the 1970s are now lived in by commuters).
In summary: we have an excellent source of mapped dispersed settlements in 
Europe; absence of any specific tags for such places has only slightly impeded 
mapping (although perhaps a rigorous insistence on locality having no 
population may make it harder); there are reasonable precedents (townlands.ie) 
for using a locality tag to add further information; and, lastly, the 
relationship between zoonyms, admin boundaries and settlements is likely to be 
complex in such places requiring good local & historical knowledge.
Jerry
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
OpenStreetMap
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license.  |   |

  |

  |

 


.

  From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"  
 Sent: Friday, 16 June 2017, 11:25
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements
   


sent from a phone

> On 16. Jun 2017, at 11:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A minimum of 10 residential dwellings


I'd set the minimum as 2-3 (above isolated dwelling)


> each separated from the others by at least 500 meters, with a maximum overall 
> area of 5 square kilometres



for me they don't have to be _each_ separated and there mustn't be a minimum 
distance, it's sufficient that they don't form a nucleus. I'd also not limit 
this by any maximum area, the criterion is that there is a name for the 
ensemble.


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] Restaurant that doesn't sell alcohol...

2017-04-10 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Hi,
There are two examples of byob=yes, one of bring_your_own_wine=yes, and one 
alcohol=bring_your_own_bottle.
No doubt there are other tags of which I'm not aware. I would have thought that 
London must have a goodly number of BYOB establishments, and surely more than 4.
Regards,
Jerry

  From: Dave F 
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"  
 Sent: Monday, 10 April 2017, 13:54
 Subject: [Tagging] Restaurant that doesn't sell alcohol...
   
Hi

I've a restaurant that doesn't sell alcohol but allows customers to 
bring their own & the restaurant will open & serve it.

I can't find anything relevant in taginfo. Any ideas?

DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] Dead hedge

2017-02-20 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Just re-read the section in the BCTV handbook and the form they describe under 
"dead hedging" is rather different from the straightforward brash pile. Both 
exist, although in my experience the latter is commoner, but I don't do 
conservation work in woodland suffering from too much grazing by deer.
Note also the use of cut thorny shrubs to create protective barriers in African 
villages.
Either way I would still strongly advise avoiding "dead hedge" as it is not a 
term which is likely to be widely understood, and will clearly be 
mis-understood  In construction these are closest to wattle fences, although 
the construction material which is interwoven  is wood brash rather than nice 
coppice poles.
Jerry



  From: Jerry Clough - OSM <sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk>
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> 
 Sent: Monday, 20 February 2017, 14:18
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge
   
I've many such things: the material is called brash (sometimes brush) in the 
UK. It is often just collected in piles or in longer rows (typically at the 
edge of the area being worked on) and these are usually referred to as brash 
piles.
Brash is also used to deliberately fill gaps to discourage people (& their 
dogs) from accessing places.
Dead hedge is just not a term that I recognise: it certainly isn't standard 
British English in the conservation sector. Some hedgelaying techniques of 
interweaving can be used, but these are in the main to reduce the size & 
profile of the pile. When used as a barrier brash is usually used to plug small 
gaps rather than to create a continuous barrier. Note that sometimes brash is 
simply not cleared after chainsaw or brush-cutting and this may appear to a 
deliberate rather than a transient & accidental barrier.
I would therefore suggest barrier=brash_pile or brush_pile, and despite 
Wikipedia not dead hedge. Like every other native English speaker on this list 
dead hedge means a hedge where the plants have died.
Jerry

  From: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Monday, 13 February 2017, 21:02
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge
  
On 13/02/2017 20:46, Chris Hill wrote:
>
> It's a fence.
>

+1 to that.

Despite both of the refs on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_hedge 
being English ones, it's not an English term I recognise at all, and it 
could have been designed to confuse.

Cheers,

Andy


___
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] Dead hedge

2017-02-20 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
I've many such things: the material is called brash (sometimes brush) in the 
UK. It is often just collected in piles or in longer rows (typically at the 
edge of the area being worked on) and these are usually referred to as brash 
piles.
Brash is also used to deliberately fill gaps to discourage people (& their 
dogs) from accessing places.
Dead hedge is just not a term that I recognise: it certainly isn't standard 
British English in the conservation sector. Some hedgelaying techniques of 
interweaving can be used, but these are in the main to reduce the size & 
profile of the pile. When used as a barrier brash is usually used to plug small 
gaps rather than to create a continuous barrier. Note that sometimes brash is 
simply not cleared after chainsaw or brush-cutting and this may appear to a 
deliberate rather than a transient & accidental barrier.
I would therefore suggest barrier=brash_pile or brush_pile, and despite 
Wikipedia not dead hedge. Like every other native English speaker on this list 
dead hedge means a hedge where the plants have died.
Jerry

  From: Andy Townsend 
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Monday, 13 February 2017, 21:02
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge
   
On 13/02/2017 20:46, Chris Hill wrote:
>
> It's a fence.
>

+1 to that.

Despite both of the refs on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_hedge 
being English ones, it's not an English term I recognise at all, and it 
could have been designed to confuse.

Cheers,

Andy


___
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] knotted willows

2017-02-20 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
There are problems with this approach.
Many trees are pollarded once in their lifetimes: I'm currently looking out at 
some Beech trees which were probably pollarded 70 years ago, and there's a 
Birch which was pollarded rather crudely 50 years ago in the neighbours garden. 
Ancient pollards can be 500 years old. Re-pollarding a tree which has not been 
managed in this way for a long time is a rather hazardous operation for the 
tree. 
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Pollarding - Wikipedia
   |   |

  |

  |

 

If a macrophanerophyte is regularly pollarded then it's probably wrong to call 
it a tree. Most coppiced plants will only be allowed to grow to 5-8 m high and 
the individual stems will rarely be more than 10cm diameter. In Britain Hazel, 
Sallows, and Ash are certainly still coppiced. Oak has been coppiced in the 
past as a source of charcoal. However, like pollarded trees neglected coppice 
stools can grow into large multi-stemmed trees. A typical scenario is a wetland 
site where seedlings of any trees are cut close to ground-level ('coppiced') to 
maintain the wetland habitat: this is a relatively easy intervention and can be 
repeated. However, once tree cover can no longer be halted, or when the ground 
dries out, then the coppice stools will be left to grow of their own accord. In 
most former gravel pits in Britain there are numerous examples of 15m high 
mutli-stemmed Crack Willows which originated in this way.
In general I don't think coppicing is a useful thing to apply to an individual 
tree. Coppicing is more usually a woodland management technique and therefore 
belongs to natural=wood and landuse=forest. A typical woodland form in Britain 
is a wood which is coppice with standards. The understorey (most usually Hazel, 
but in Bradfield Woods it's Ash) is coppiced on a cycle which may be from 5-20 
years. Some trees are always retained and form the canopy. Historically the 
understorey produced firewood, and poles, the standard trees were felled for 
timber. 
For individual trees we might recognise the following properties:
   
   - The tree is a pollard (i.e., has been pollarded at least once fairly early 
in its life)
   - The tree is currently managed by repetitive pollarding
   - The tree is multi-stemmed as a result of growing from a coppice stool
   - The tree is multi-stemmed as a result of growing from the planting of 2 or 
more saplings in a bundle (bundle planting)

Tall Common Limes (Tilia x europea) are often managed by a pollarding-like 
process: side branches are removed, the crown is severely reduced, and the 
trunk is cut short at the top. I'm not sure if this qualifies as a pollard.
Additionally there are other styles of regular pruning. For instance fruit 
trees in the Swiss Mittelland are pruned in a way which is very recognisable, 
so that it is quite easy to identify former orchards where the pruning ceased 
decades ago. The tree is usually pruned to have a leader and four principle 
branches. I suspect this Wikipedia article describes the technique in depth. 
Oaks growing in Dehesa (Cork, Holm and Pyrenean) are pruned in a not dissimilar 
manner, perhaps with 3 main branches, but the centre of the crown is kept 
fairly open. You can see examples here. However I would not choose to add this 
information to OSM: it is safe to assume that trees in Spanish Dehesa and Swiss 
Orchards will generally be manage this way. Quite beside which there are 
something like 37 million oaks in the dehesas of Extremadura.
Jerry


  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Dehesa
   |   |

  |

  |

 

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Oeschbergschnitt – Wikipedia
   |   |

  |

  |

 
  From: joost schouppe 
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"  
 Sent: Friday, 17 February 2017, 16:26
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] knotted willows
   
Considering that there are several management styles for individual trees, we 
could have something like
tree:managament=pollard
Other values might be none (allowed to grow free), copicce (pruned almost to 
the ground), espalier (pruned into a flat vertical surface), etc.
tree:management:operator=* could then be used to indicate who is keeping the 
tree pruned. 

Maybe tree:pruning_style would be more logical?
2017-02-11 13:34 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Zenker :

Hi,

* joost schouppe  [170211 09:43]:
> One of the defining small landscape elements in Flanders (and probably many
> rural areas in Europe) is the "knotted willow". I'm not sure if this is the
> right term in English, in Dutch "knotwilg" really is a thing.

> How would you tag such a thing? (I could not find any previous discussions
> anywhere)

> natural=tree
> genus=Salix
> +
> management_style=knotted

> Or something like that?

> Apparently there's two words in Dutch:
> - knotwilg: knotted at about 2 meters high
> - grienden: knotted 

Re: [Tagging] test track tagging (vs highway=raceway)

2016-10-25 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Hi Richard,
Not just test tracks. Your post instantly brought to mind the training track at 
the Police school outside Merida. I'm sure other Police training establishments 
must also have tracks designed for training of advanced driving skills.
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
OpenStreetMap | Way: ‪Academia Guardia civil Trafico‬ (‪38288436‬)
 OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to 
use under an open license.  |   |

  |

  |

 

My reaction is that this is a rare case where  I think the original tag still 
does the bulk of the work. Rather than split into multiple values (raceway, 
test_track, training_track), I suggest the way to go is to subtag with 
raceway=*. Raceway is already used a) for some of these other types of track; 
and b) also applies to motocross and other disciplines. I presume the 
preponderance of these specialised motor tracks are used for racing of one form 
or another; and that test tracks are only a small proportion. (I also suspect 
that driving at speed is often a part of testing and training).
Cheers,
Jerry

  From: Richard Welty 
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"  
 Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2016, 16:46
 Subject: [Tagging] test track tagging (vs highway=raceway)
   
i don't have a particular proposal in mind for this, just looking for input.

there are various tracks in the world that are not used for racing, but
for testing only. major auto manufacturers have their own tracks, and
independent organizations do too (for example, the US publication
Consumer Reports has converted an old drag racing complex in CT into
their own private test facility. likewise i believe there is a small private
test facility on the grounds of the old Brooklands oval in the UK.)

what kind of tagging do folks think is appropriate for these?

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


___
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] Orchards and their crops

2015-09-15 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Hi John,
This is pretty much the type of situation which the taxon tag is meant to cope 
with: current tagging says it's an apple orchard, with taxon we can show that 
it's one for Bramley's or the cider apples loved by RichardF.
"taxon=Malus domestica 'Bramley's Seedling'"
This can be used with species & genus too; but most useful is the usage widely 
used by the Vienna tree import:
 "taxon:cultivar=Bramley's Seedling" 
(in this case the single quotes obligatory in the formal name are not needed 
because all cultivar names require them. This can be used standalone, on the 
basis that trees=apple_trees is a synonym of species|taxon=Malus domestica.
Your next problem is to identify the cultivars: not easy with cherries in Japan.
Jerry
   From: johnw 
 To: strategy and related tools Tag discussion  
 Sent: Tuesday, 15 September 2015, 0:52
 Subject: [Tagging] Orchards and their crops
   
I came across some mis-tagged orchards in Japan, and in the process of 
researching how to tag them correctly, I noticed some discrepancies in the EN 
and JA wiki pages for orchards, trees, and related things. the JA page for 
orchard includes the trees= definitions, for example. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dorchard   
Englishhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:landuse%3Dorchard Japanese

My question to the group is how to deal with trees=* when it seems to be very 
generic (apple tree, pear tree, etc) and more specific kinds of crops (fuji 
apples, asian pears). 
crop=* for orchard was changed to trees=* - but how do we get more specific on 
what kind of fruit is grown? do we make a ton of different tree=* tags, or do 
we make generics and then specify the exact fruit produced through produce=* or 
some other tag? 
Also, someone has added a ton of trees to the JA list (and a few to the EN 
list), including cranberries - which are grown in a swampy bog - hardly an 
orchard. Should be at least in farmland+crop, possibly some form of wetlands. I 
cleaned up the entries on the ja page by added “trees” to the items, and 
striking out sugarcane and cranberry, but I didn’t delete any other entries. I 
didn’t touch the EN page. 
I can clean up the JA page to match the EN page, but I need to know how do deal 
with the trees and what they produce:  are the trees=* a very specific type of 
tree, or are they general - and how do we specify the exact type of fruit 
produced?  apples, oranges, pears, peaches, have regional varieties - and 
custard apples and asian pears (sand pears) may be considered so different from 
their normal varieties as to warrant their own tree and rendering. 
If I’m reading the english wiki pages for orchard=, trees= and produce= 
correctly, keeping the trees generic and the specific fruit in produce= seems 
to be right way. I added one example to the JA wiki page for asian pears: 
landuse=orchardtrees=pear_treesproduce=sand_pear  
so fuji apples would be 
landuse=orchardtrees=apple_treesproduce=fuji_apples 
Is this the right way to handle it, and should it be documented this way?
Javbw
___
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] Orchards and their crops

2015-09-15 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Hi John,
No there is nothing I'm aware of which discriminates anywhere between 
cultivated pears in general (Pyrus communis) & specific cultivars 
('Conference'). Cultivar just is shorthand for "cultivated variety" so of 
course there is no hierarchy variety=>cultivar.
That's just the way gardeners & horticulturalists have evolved their naming 
over hundreds of years. (and for Japanese cherries it's worse as they have such 
a complicated heritage it is not possible to accurately assign them to a 
species, so they are formally known just with the genus & cultivar (Prunus 
'Kanzan' for example).
I suspect the kind of thing you want is related to some other, non-biological, 
property of the said orchard trees: such as colour, use (cooking apple, cider 
apple, perry pear, ornament). Or you are looking for properties which are 
biological, but not directly related to the biological classification (e.g., 
flowering time). If not then I can't help, and I'd be pretty sceptical that you 
can achieve a tagging mechanism that is genuinely useful given that the 
biological/horticultural one has 250+ years of refinement.
Jerry
  
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Conference pear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA Conference pear is a 
variety of pear. |
|  |
| View on en.wikipedia.org | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |



|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Prunus 'Kanzan' - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPrunus 'Kanzan' (syn. 
'Kwanzan' or 'Sekiyama') is a flowering cherry cultivar. It is a deciduous tree 
that grows to between 8 and 12 metres high with an 8 metre spr... |
|  |
| View on en.wikipedia.org | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


 From: John Willis <jo...@mac.com>
 To: Jerry Clough - OSM <sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk>; "Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, 15 September 2015, 9:54
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Orchards and their crops
   


Javbw

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Jerry Clough - OSM <sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> our next problem is to identify the cultivars: not easy with cherries in 
> Japan.

So there is nothing between

"This is a pear"

And

"This is the very specific cultivar of this variety of this pear.

?

It looks like ill be requesting some more tree types then. 



Javbw. 

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


Re: [Tagging] Camps

2015-05-06 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
Lets be quite clear.
I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a different 
issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks, travellers sites etc.) 
are a form of residential landuse.
Jerry
   From: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
 To: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk; Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 0:08
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps
   
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
 
  It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover
 camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be
 leisure=vacation_camp. 

I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of
people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on
vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers.  These grounds are
'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world.

tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that
excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey 
Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ?

 ... very specific British connotations associated with 
  holiday_camp. 

Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called
resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. 




 
 In general I would use any derivative of resort : it is a word which
 has far too many meanings. 

Did you mean to say avoid the use of  there ?

So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing
tourism=camp_site ?

David




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


Re: [Tagging] Camps

2015-05-05 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
 It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover camps 
organised for profit and by non-profits would be leisure=vacation_camp. This 
simply generalises summer, and avoids the very specific British connotations 
associated with  holiday_camp. This does not precisely cover things like scout 
camps, but is a reasonable starting ground. I should add in practice there is 
no need to get hung-up about using summer_camp for ones which run all year 
round: the most important objective of a tag is to be easy to recall: as the 
vast majority of such camps run in holiday periods and the Wikipedia article 
has the same title, I suspect this is where people will start.
In general I would use any derivative of resort : it is a word which has far 
too many meanings. To me a resort is a town or village specialising in 
providing facilities for tourists; in Malaysia I have seen quite simple hotels 
described as resorts; and elsewhere it refers to holiday centres of the likes 
of ClubMed. 
Jerry
   From: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2015, 10:01
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps
   




On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
wrote:
organised_camp doesn't add any information compared to camp, any kind of camp 
will be organised. (medical camp, refugee camp, detention camp, summer camp, 
military camp, ...)


Sure it adds information.
At a campground each camper is free to organize their time among their own 
group.At scout, military and summer camp there is a scheduled program campers 
are expected to participate in.
These are fundamentally different venues.
___
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] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names

2015-05-01 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
It really just happened. species, genus and taxon as tags came into existence 
at similar times. It may well be that my use of taxon was inspired by your own 
initiative on Flickr.
Currently the position is very simple:
   
   - species and genus are preferred tags for taxon:species and taxon:genus
   - species and taxon are often, but by no means always, tag synonyms.

There is little harm in duplicating keys for taxon  species, and in practice 
genus is nearly always useful (if valid) with either tag. This is because 
parsing the range of potential values in taxon or species can be a real pain.
The tree import in Vienna shows very well how these tags can work together, 
when a tree is a known cultivar. The tagging uses something like:

genus=Populusspecies=Populus nigrataxon=Populus nigra 
'Italica'taxon:cultivar='Italica'

There were objections to using taxon on the basis that people wouldn't know 
what it meant: my feeling is that if you are confidently identifying trees to 
species then it is likely that you do!
Of course there are lots of rubbish values in both sets of tags (check out 
Bologna), and funny problems exist with names for certain species such as 
London Plane, where the accepted name in the UK may be different from other 
European countries. It may also be useful to have some sort of convention for 
species:iso2cd and genus:iso2cd along the lines of Pedunculate Oak for the 
case where the vernacular name corresponds to the taxon, and oak where the 
vernacular name is more generic.
Jerry Clough

   From: Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Monday, 27 April 2015, 16:44
 Subject: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
   
The wiki page for Tag:natural=tree:

  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree

includes:

  taxon=*

and:

  species=*
  genus=*

The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant.

How should this be resolved?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

2014-10-21 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
A few points:

* OSM standard is British English. Shopping Centre is standard British 
English for an enclosed pedestrian space with lots of shops. Historically these 
have been covered, but this is changing to a simulated street environment (in 
UK Liverpool One the Arc at Bury St Edmunds are recent examples.
* Use of the shop tag is inherently problematic. These are not shops 
but retail areas. At the moment whenever I do any kind of retail analytical 
query I have to do AND NOT IN (shop='mall'). I would prefer to use 
landuse=retail with retail=mall or retail=shopping centre etc. We certainly 
don't tag a centre of a village with a few shops as shop=village_centre.
* shop=mall is more widely used, and although predominantly US English 
is not likely to be a confusion which shopping centre obviously is from prior 
posts here. Some of the examples cited would be usually called Retail Park 
for what I think is typically called a strip mall in the US, and Shopping 
Precinct for a smaller pedestrian area, often with only minor weather 
protection for shoppers. The latter are dying on their feet in the UK as they 
cant compete with the Retail Park or have a poor selection of shops.
* I attempted to provide a fairly detailed typology of these various 
types of retail area in a blog post last summer (hopefully with some useful 
illustrations). However I think this could be expanded substantially especially 
with more examples from different countries. See also the typology used by a 
specialist Retail GIS Analytics company which features at the start of the 
blog. Some (largely those featuring the word Parade) may be very UK specific, 
but most are suitably general. There are also a couple of slides relating to 
the issue in my SotM-Baltics presentation (#10 in particular).
* I noticed whilst attending SotM-Baltics last summer that true 
shopping centres/malls are very common in the main towns in Latvia and Estonia. 
Presumably they are a favoured way of adding new retail premises. Unfortunately 
many of these have 3 or more shopping floors and are even harder to map than 2 
storey malls.
* The two main shopping centres in Nottingham have had all the retail 
outlets mapped. There are many issues as to the best way to map shopping 
centres/malls but it is clear that if one wants to be accurate about the 
provision of shops in a town it is essential that this is done. They are also 
difficult to map because most establishments are access=customers and do not 
allow photography. 
* I mapped an area E of Pittsburgh, PA which has a nice variety of 
different kinds of out-of-town retail areas (a mall, Monroeville Mall, several 
strip malls, smaller areas, numerous car dealers). Unfortunately we don't have 
active mappers in the area. If anyone can identify a similar location in the US 
where there are active mappers and useful pictures this would really help sort 
out the kind of typology we need.
I did start drafting a blog post on this very issue mentioning many of the 
points above, so it's probably time to finish it.

Cheers,

Jerry

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
OpenStreetMap
OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map.  
View on osm.org Preview by Yahoo  
 
 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Blogger
Free weblog publishing tool from Google, for sharing text, photos and video.  
View on www.blogger.com Preview by Yahoo  
 
  


On Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
  


To me analyzing the given examples it seems as if a mall was necessarily a 
closed place while a shopping center would/could have outdoor connectivity. 
They appear to be similar as they both have several independent shops and 
collective facilities like toilets and parking. Maybe a mall has to have 
restaurants and other eating facilities, while a shopping center doesn't have 
to (but could have). I think small sets of shops with collective parking won't 
qualify as mall but they might constitute a shopping center.


___
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] Truckage company

2014-10-21 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM
As Dudley said, Haulage contractor is standard British-English for firms (and 
individuals) who own and operate Heavy Goods Vehicles (over 3.5 t IIRC) to 
transport a whole range of loads. As others have said logistics is about the 
whole chain of processes rather than specifically individual movements.

A more generic term might be road freight.

Jerry 


On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 23:35, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
  





Distribution logistics is the *planning* of moving goods from a factory to the 
customer - the post office isn't a logistics company. Fedex or UPS, wich will 
pick up, store, warehouse, and ship another company's goods as they request 
them to be shipped to the customer for them is a Distribution Logistics 
company. - they plan it (to guarantee delivery) and move it all too.   


It seems that Haulage is like for ore transport or bulk goods - not something 
you'd do with a truck on the highway. 


I think it is something commonly described as a logistics company. 


Courrier just delivers a package for a to b for a fee, like a local or 
regional delivery company. 


maybe 
commercial=logistics 


logistics=Distribution
logistics=Courrier
logistics=Trucking  to pick up the remainder, as there are a myriad of special 
delivery places - piano movers, livestock delivery, boat movers,  for example. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_driver#Job_categories


missed a couple:


logistics would also cover the intermodal companies - moving shipping 
containers from boat to train to truck, as well as moving companies (people who 
move your house contents to another house) and storage/delivery companies. 

logistics=yard   [for freight yards]
logistics=warehouse [for the gigantic warehouses they use]
logistics=intermodal
logistics= movers


Javbw

Javbw

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