Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

It has no sense to inflating classifications of every island in the word for 
being the most important road in respective island.

If a neighbor garage is more quieter than the mine is not a justification to 
elevate road classification of one of them to compensate this difference.

The highway=* tag is no made to use all classifications in a region delimited 
by you.

You need take account the function supplied by the road, the differences in the 
highway value are related to the function of the road.
In the case of Fildes Peninsula the higher function are roads to serving 
research stations, this corresponds with unclassified at most. Even could be 
service in some cases. More than unclassified it seems unjustifiable.
The highway tag is no made to reflects microscopic differences between roads in 
a small area.


De: Fernando Trebien 
Enviado: lunes, 29 de abril de 2024 10:01
Para: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 08:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> Apr 28, 2024, 22:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
>
> 3. If they are hamlets, shouldn't the main routes connecting them be
> mapped as highway=tertiary, based on the definitions in the wiki? [1]
> [1] 
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F10078630=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233506792%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=oAvTgzxcuiJTXgh6%2Bi6AjSBqGlbPtTxCPIMO3cqQuGE%3D=0
>
> why you think that place=hamlet are automatically entitled to
> highway=tertiary?

The wiki emphasizes the highway classification should consider the
relative importance of roads within regional contexts even for the
lowest highway classes:

"Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate
traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets."
"For quieter linking roads, consider using highway=unclassified
instead"
(quietER, relative, not quiet, absolute)
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FTag%3Ahighway%253Dtertiary=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233519111%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=pBbMh%2BdZ9ecX5pudgBvOHWhXUN%2BPIJhwS4iUTT6o3vc%3D=0

"The distinction between unclassified and tertiary often causes
confusion: in general, always consider the road's relative importance
in the region's road network and tag appropriately."
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FTag%3Ahighway%253Dunclassified=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233526494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=9yuc4PYI%2F8waFFoQ4RMTggPcSQC5TFhJcuDEXCJlb3I%3D=0

The wiki also lists highway classes by importance, from top to bottom
within a country, leading to the spread of highway classes according
to local conditions. So, in Antarctica, a neutral mapper (not
projecting country-specific customs or personal preferences) following
this guidance would tend to raise highway classification.
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FKey%3Ahighway%23Highway=05%7C02%7C%7C9317d3cd05904e63ede108dc6855df9d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499965233533587%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=uv4yzBEc63kjdbWJGauRDtW1hYKXsCgUVr0VKuSjPbs%3D=0

I agree with you that it would be a stretch to interpret this as
assigning highway=trunk to the only way between the only two houses on
an isolated island. But there are many intermediate cases in the world
between this extreme and the other extreme (a large, populated island
country with many villages and connecting roads) and no clear guidance
on when to start increasing highway classification.

And finally, the many examples I found near the Arctic seem to
constitute a tacit precedent for such regional relativizations that
represent mappers' preferences and practices in regions similar to the
Antarctic region. If we are truly concerned about coherence, then this
should be taken into account. The reasons why these mappers chose this
mapping style are probably linked to the practical uses of the map
(typically rendering and routing). If the map isn't good enough for
the users, they won't 

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

I think is much more simpler than said you. Related to King George Island:

Firstly, the unclassified value is used also to linking with hamlets according 
Key:highway. Due the settlements of Fildes Peninsula are in the lowet limit of 
hamlet/village (supposing these are the correct values), then is easily to 
discard tertiary value.

Next, the wiki suggest to choose unclassified than tertiary for quieter linking 
roads. Until the moment, most people agree the all roads of Fildes Peninsula 
are quieter, then another reason to discard tertiary value.

Tertiary inside urban context that cited by you, refers explicitly to bigger 
settlements. This does not meaning you need to linking all relevant POIs with a 
tertiary, but they can be found typically in streets with tertiary or higher 
classification. Further, in Villa Las Estrellas de most of POIs are only 
accessible by footways.

Fildes Peninsula have only near 100 inhabitants. There is no a practical 
difference if the other research stations are joined with Villa Las Estrellas 
or a little further.

I think this is the most common interpretation for Fildes Peninsula, used also 
by the people who gave their opinion outside the mailing list. Your approach 
are too relativistic.

Regards.



De: Fernando Trebien 
Enviado: domingo, 28 de abril de 2024 16:44
Para: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 at 02:13, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana
 wrote:
> I do not understand your petition

Put concretely:

1. Are Villa Las Estrellas, Bellingshausen Station, Great Wall Station
and Artigas Base considered settlements in OSM? Should they be
considered to have population=0?

2. If they are settlements, should they be mapped as place=hamlet
according to the definitions in the wiki?

3. If they are hamlets, shouldn't the main routes connecting them be
mapped as highway=tertiary, based on the definitions in the wiki? [1]

3.1. Is a minimum road length required, or is it sufficient that the
settlements are disjoint?

4. Shouldn't roads on the Fildes Peninsula be given a higher
classification if they serve important regional functions, similar to
how roads in other sparsely populated regions are being classified in
practice? The wiki says that the physical characteristics of different
types of highway=* can vary drastically between different regions of
the planet, and that one should assign highway=trunk to the road of
highest importance in a region, does this sort of adjustment only
apply to the highest highway levels (highway=trunk and
highway=primary)?

5. Considering the importance of the South Pole Traverse, shouldn't it
be highway=secondary or higher if it is the most important regional
route of the whole continent? What factors justify a lower
classification: poor infrastructure, harsh conditions, low population,
settlement type (value of place=*), or some other reason?

For point #5, maybe the South Pole Traverse can be compared to the
Tibbitt to Contwoyto Winter Road in Canada,[1] which is mapped as
highway=secondary despite having no nearby settlements apart from the
small MacKay Lake Lodge midway. It is the longest ice road in the
world, covering about 500 km connecting Yellowknife to some diamond
mines every winter for two months, 85% of the route is on frozen
lakes. If highway=secondary is appropriate in this case, why shouldn't
it be for the South Pole Traverse?

For point #4, I found several practical examples from regions like
Norway, Iceland and Canada, where small villages with very low
population counts are served by highway=secondary or highway=primary.
I'm sharing these below as they were only discussed in changeset
comments:

- In Norway: Gamvik and Fredvang are small villages of about 200
people served by highway=secondary
- In Iceland: Flateyri and Tálknafjörður are small villages of about
220 people served by highway=primary, and Hjalteyri is a hamlet of 37
people served by highway=secondary
- In the Faroe Islands: Tjørnuvík and Kunoy are small villages of
about 65 people served by highway=secondary
- In Canada: Whatì and Tulita are villages of about 500 people served
by highway=secondary and highway=primary respectively
- In Alaska: Eagle is a small village of 145 people served by
highway=primary and Teller is village of 268 people served by
highway=secondary
- In Russia: Varzuga is a village of 350 people and Yamburg is a small
village of 100, both served by highway=secondary

Gamvik: 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2F%3Fmlat%3D71.0537%26mlon%3D28.23607=05%7C02%7C%7C816a6222ed7b4082759b08dc67c48821%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638499340995177938%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=8nHl2sJQ1UgQpTH2WmxwZX4xs4LywZOJgUrOBRE4RaI%3D=0<https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=71.0537=28.23607>

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

I do not understand your petition if all tertiary/secondary values on 
non-traverse roads of Antarctica were put by yourself. In any case due the 
isolation of majority of research stations, they do not affect each other.

Regards.


De: Fernando Trebien 
Enviado: sábado, 27 de abril de 2024 20:02
Para: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 at 20:39, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana
 wrote:
> there is opposition to using tertiary in Argentine bases Marambio and 
> Esperanza/Fortín Sargento Cabral. Although Antarctica is an international 
> space

Those would be back to unclassified/residential as they belong to the
case "main ways within stations".

> I guess should take account the opinion of local communities where respective 
> countries operate.

For the sake of verifiability,[1] I agree as long as those apply to
the whole continent (including all other stations and traverses)
uniformly and consistently.

[1] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FVerifiability%23Problematic_tags=05%7C02%7C%7C5ab3d2cec8c3404733b608dc671707fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638498595816359031%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=5mTS8c5NRJvs1lX2mCjJn9WvplzHeYQ2pU0feDHuILE%3D=0<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Problematic_tags>

--
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging=05%7C02%7C%7C5ab3d2cec8c3404733b608dc671707fe%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638498595816368121%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=Q8tmWaKTPRxpbVgktEH0YzfXKMp0OUZ8FSc64Cq31cw%3D=0<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

I do not understand how is estimated a median point between unclassified and 
tertiary values. Chilean community has shown opposition to upgrade from 
unclassified to tertiary the access to Villa Las Estrellas/Frei base. The 
Argentine community has not spoken in this mailing list, but those I have 
consulted there is opposition to using tertiary in Argentine bases Marambio and 
Esperanza/Fortín Sargento Cabral. Although Antarctica is an international space 
I guess should take account the opinion of local communities where respective 
countries operate.

All of them were tagged as highway=unclassified/residential before your 
editions one year ago.

De: Fernando Trebien 
Enviado: viernes, 26 de abril de 2024 11:03
Para: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

A possible revised assignment taking the medians of different opinions
case by case:

South Pole Traverse: secondary (or maybe primary)
The other 4 traverses: tertiary
Ground routes between major stations, airports and harbours: tertiary
Main ways within stations: unclassified

At McMurdo, Main Street, The Gap, Williams Field Road and Phoenix Road
would become tertiary, and all other current tertiaries would be
demoted to unclassified.

Are there any objections to this change? This will affect 130 ways.

I forgot to mention that the Route du Raid was highway=secondary from
2018 to 2023 [1] and that the South Pole Traverse was
highway=unclassified from 2012 to 2020 and highway=primary since then,
with three different mappers trying to change it to highway=trunk. [2]
For two years, Route du Raid was mapped as more important than the
South Pole Traverse.

[1] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F187792382%2Fhistory=05%7C02%7C%7C33691d553b0649c332fd08dc660307e4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638497410409763397%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=hRBq0xDCkzSuU2J79MklZ2G47ndFNkEUzL8s%2ByQJq44%3D=0
[2] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F124904767%2Fhistory=05%7C02%7C%7C33691d553b0649c332fd08dc660307e4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638497410409777300%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=Xzzr%2B9AdOf8usJ1fFfY2Mlj7Dr6n341mbxodmvQ49Uk%3D=0

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 11:27, Fernando Trebien
 wrote:
>
> As Antarctica is international space,[1] I understand that, in
> principle, the highway classification scheme of no particular country
> applies there. For a while, I tried to come up with a balanced generic
> scheme based on the regional importance of these roads,[2] which has
> been questioned,[3] so I would like to hear opinions on the matter.
>
> Should the classification of highways in Antarctica:
>
> 1. Follow country-specific conventions near stations? This can lead to
> different classifications for long polar traverses maintained by
> different countries and can create disconnected road networks (in
> terms of classification) between nearby stations operated by different
> countries.
>
> 2. Follow generic OSM definitions based on absolute population
> thresholds of the places they connect? (10k+ people for town, 1k for
> village, 100 for hamlet, etc.) This will assign very low road classes
> across the continent.
>
> 3. Follow generic OSM definitions based on lower place population
> thresholds that are more compatible with the reality of the continent,
> based on regional importance? [4] The result may be perceived by some
> as assigning higher than normal highway classes to the connections
> between these small settlements.
>
> Additionally, should the permanent population be considered (zero in
> most cases, which is the case even for larger stations, further
> lowering highway classification), or the average occupancy of the
> stations?
>
> Regards,
>
> [1] 
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAntarctic_Treaty_System=05%7C02%7C%7C33691d553b0649c332fd08dc660307e4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638497410409786003%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=J2h9x1YEpzn1cDBmoXkvs955JWijSDKybowYjdZ1%2F8w%3D=0
> [2] 
> 

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

There are also several places like Tristan da Cunha with only 
highway=unclassified/residential. In any case it does not seem the best 
solution to copy specific decisions from other local communities. Reading 
associated definitions the unclassified value seems to be the best fit for King 
George Island.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

Civilian residents of Villa Las Estrellas are basically the families of the 
Chilean Air Force members or other special staff, they do not compose the group 
of external normal people. Probably King George Island operates more like a 
private area.


De: Fernando Trebien 
Enviado: viernes, 26 de abril de 2024 9:07
Para: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 03:16, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana
 wrote:
> There are no road network in King George Island, only a few short roads to 
> serving research stations.

What is the minimum number of roads needed for a set of ways to
qualify as a road network?

Consider Tuvalu, listed by Wikipedia as having one of the smallest
road networks in the world.[1] It has a population of around 6
thousand people. Its main island, Fongafale, has one main road that
passes by an airport and only a few other local roads (streets). In
OSM, the main road is mapped as highway=primary.

For comparison, Niue has around 1,700 inhabitants. Its capital town,
Alofi, has around 600 inhabitants, and its other main villages have
around 200 people or fewer each. Niue's main villages are linked by an
unnamed highway=secondary in OSM and the smaller ones are linked by
highway=tertiary. For example, the route from Alofi to Lakepa, a
village of 87 people, is highway=tertiary. Niue has fewer people and
more roads than Tuvalu. Which of these factors allows using
highway=tertiary or higher?

Other examples include Filicudi island in Italy, with 235 inhabitants,
where one unnamed highway=tertiary road connects its main villages,
with only a few local roads branching off from it, and Agathonisi
island in Greece, which has the same pattern.

[1] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_countries_by_road_network_size=05%7C02%7C%7Cba3d9ce597444c7d2bf108dc65f2e103%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638497341035666039%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=yVa4TWqJSnSd3z0ECId04Wu8aZG5wigNN9g3gEcO50M%3D=0<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_road_network_size>

--
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging=05%7C02%7C%7Cba3d9ce597444c7d2bf108dc65f2e103%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638497341035678848%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=xMaJVwNvRFEA66M1G7CW4vjLBikhInPnCQ15ZFgmaK8%3D=0<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

About King George Island, if I am not wrong, the normal people can not reach 
the island from any ferry neither commercial flights from the rest of the 
world. You can only reach the island using a cargo aircraft.
Inside the island you can not drive a motor vehicle, in the best case only can 
walk or be transported by special staff. Probably tourists can only move 
between the aerodrome and Villa Las Estrellas. It is a restrictive place for 
the general public, therefore it does not seem useful to use a higher 
classification than highway=unclassified.

Country-specific conventions are based on the international definitions. The 
latter should be sufficient and any local consideration does not imply a 
redefinition of the tag. The "assumptions" section of the wiki explains the 
case of a whole road network with bad infrastructure. There are no road network 
in King George Island, only a few short roads to serving research stations. I 
think the default value should be unclassified (or service if the road leads to 
a single building) and from that discuss if is necessary to elevate 
classification to highway=tertiary. Secondary value seems clearly wrong for the 
island.

Also there are questionable tertiary roads before tagged as 
highway=unclassified/residential in stations Fortín Sargento Cabral and 
Marambio, included conversions from place=hamlet to place=village and a 
highway=unclassified towards the summit of Mount Vinson.

Regards.


De: Fernando Trebien 
Enviado: miércoles, 24 de abril de 2024 10:27
Para: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Asunto: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

As Antarctica is international space,[1] I understand that, in
principle, the highway classification scheme of no particular country
applies there. For a while, I tried to come up with a balanced generic
scheme based on the regional importance of these roads,[2] which has
been questioned,[3] so I would like to hear opinions on the matter.

Should the classification of highways in Antarctica:

1. Follow country-specific conventions near stations? This can lead to
different classifications for long polar traverses maintained by
different countries and can create disconnected road networks (in
terms of classification) between nearby stations operated by different
countries.

2. Follow generic OSM definitions based on absolute population
thresholds of the places they connect? (10k+ people for town, 1k for
village, 100 for hamlet, etc.) This will assign very low road classes
across the continent.

3. Follow generic OSM definitions based on lower place population
thresholds that are more compatible with the reality of the continent,
based on regional importance? [4] The result may be perceived by some
as assigning higher than normal highway classes to the connections
between these small settlements.

Additionally, should the permanent population be considered (zero in
most cases, which is the case even for larger stations, further
lowering highway classification), or the average occupancy of the
stations?

Regards,

[1] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAntarctic_Treaty_System=05%7C02%7C%7C0b3760c198434601a06108dc646b6af5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638495659712891105%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=G7crPz4jYukR3gFPgLiauLcsW0zGfpApHxJ4ycB%2BXU0%3D=0
[2] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FAntarctica%2FTagging%23Roads_and_routes=05%7C02%7C%7C0b3760c198434601a06108dc646b6af5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638495659712905659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=HSbCRAKyCJARLM14ZvlxFm1DMQCmH4J%2BlTL6Lies978%3D=0
[3] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fchangeset%2F150316868=05%7C02%7C%7C0b3760c198434601a06108dc646b6af5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638495659712916060%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=nGBSXKn685tZJiC9rBU1jqglIvvc1Qdb8U7LsP2NNMo%3D=0
[4] 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FKey%3Ahighway%23Assumptions=05%7C02%7C%7C0b3760c198434601a06108dc646b6af5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638495659712923682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C=6aqFQgD2angMSWfpmRyjS098TK5tyyPGGyho1WiJzGc%3D=0

--
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing 

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

I didn't know about the practice of mapping the coastline along the baseline, 
AFAIK we don't map the baseline, only their 12nm offset (maritime borders)



Vice versa, the practice is mapping the baseline along the coastline. 
But I think this is no a good idea, because baseline extend up a bit 
outside of the coastline, if the baseline runs along the low tide. In 
some places the tidal range is huge.


The example of  Rio de la Plata exposed previously is clearly poorly 
mapped according the definition of natural=coastline. Note that 
according IHO Rio de la Plata is a sea.


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

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

By default baselines match with mean low water spring, meanwhile 
natural=coastline is tagged at mean high water spring.


It would be good define some rules related to maritime boundaries don't 
agree with UNCLOS, .e.g. peruvian boundary extends up 200 miles away the 
coastline.


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

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

I don't know the Australian baseline, this is only an example. Sometimes 
the countries define a straight baseline that close a bay. Of course, 
Andrew have the freedoom to use, e.g. the tag description=* to do the 
mentioned difference.


> No, it is not a political issue, the position of the baseline is not 
in doubt here. If Andrew wants to indicate the sheltered nature of the 
coast in some way via supplemental tags that seems perfectly fine - as 
long as these tags are documented and verifiable of course.
> In any case tagging the bay as natural=bay will already indicate this 
part of the coastline to be of special nature.



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

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too 
arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use 
boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding internal waters 
from the open ocean, according of laws of the country. Check the article 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_waters


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

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

No, I just tagged the edge of the bay as natural=coastline because this 
is the top of the tidal range. Even being more rigorous the 
natural=coastline must be shifted far away towards west of current 
position. The lower part of Georges River is a typical ria: an 
unglaciated valley submerged into the seawater.



El 28/03/17 a las 09:47, Andrew Harvey escribió:

Initially I was concerned that by changing the tagging from
natural=water, water=bay to natural=bay that the whole bay would be
rendered as land since that's what the wiki suggests. I now see that
the same user changed the edges of the bay to be natural=coastline to
prevent this.

I'm agree now that it makes sense for the wiki to not recommend
filling bays as water since a bays is either part of the ocean or part
of some other waterbody like a river, lake, reservoir   etc.). A
natural=bay as an area can share a common boundary with the riverbank
like http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/483211748.

I'm not convinced that the inside here should be tagged as
natural=coastline, as it simply doesn't match the description of what
a coastline is. I think the solution here is to include botany bay and
other bays here as part of a waterbody.

On 28 March 2017 at 00:28, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote:

On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote:

It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean.  Ecologically it is a
fully

maritime waterbody.

What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"?

A waterbody where plant and animal life matches or is close to that of
the sea rather to that of a river or lake.

I think it's a grey area, it's not completely like a river, nor that
of the sea. But in this case, I'm not sure, what information do you
have that confirms this?


Botany Bay is unlike many conventional bays which are on the
coastline and part of the sea. You're right that these types of bays
are part of the sea and ocean, and other times they are part of a
river, but botany bay is really a river nor sea, if anything Botany
Bay sounds much more like an Esturary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary

In OSM we have no separate tagging for estuaries, this would not make
sense because it would just introduce yet another boundary problem
(where the river turns into the esturary and where the esturary turns
into the ocean).  An esturary is the transit of a river into the ocean.

That's exactly what botany bay is, a transit of a river into the ocean.


If you consider the Botany Bay to be part of the esturary of Georges
River you still have to decide where you place the coastline and if you
place it below the bay you have to tag the bay waterway=riverbank or
natural=water + water=river.  Creating a separate waterbody that is not
part of the river but within the coastline is wrong in our current
tagging scheme.

I don't have a problem with waterway=riverbank, as many parts of the
shoreline here are closer to a riverbank than a coastline. That's
probably the best solution here.


Note in general the esturary of Georges River would be considered to
start much further upstream, likely somewhere around here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-33.9765/151.0237

at the transit from a meandering river to a ria
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria).

Thanks for that link!

On 28 March 2017 at 06:48, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana
<jptolosanz...@gmail.com> wrote:

A maritime waterbody are all those waters under the influence of the tides.
You can review article for natural=coastline. The coastline should be placed
in the "high water mean spring":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline

The wiki says "The natural=coastline tag is used to mark the mean high
water spring line along the coastline at the edge of the sea." The
last part is key. The tidal limit is way upstream at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=-33.9252261917%2C%20150.9283593270#map=15/-33.9252/150.9284
but since the coastline tag is only marking high water mark on the
coast (the boundary between sea and land), it shouldn't be used there.


Botany Bay is part of the ocean, not a separate inland waterbody. You can
see in the terrain the mark of the tides.

So you're saying that anything below the tidal limit is the ocean?


If you swim at a coastal beach you're swimming in the sea and the
ocean. At the beaches of Botany Bay, no one would say you're in the
sea or ocean. Nor would they say you're on the coast of Australia.

This is only a colloquial thing. That lacks of verifiability. For example,
Dead Sea is not a sea, really is a lake.

What's the verifiable thing on the ground which backs up
natural=coastline on the inside of the bay(s)?


Botany Bay is unlike many conventional bays which are on the coastline
and part of the sea. You're right that these types of bays are part of
the sea and ocean, and other times they are part of a river, but
botany bay is really a river nor sea, if anything Botany Bay sounds
much more like an Estur

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

El 27/03/17 a las 16:48, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana escribió:

>>/It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a fully /> 
maritime waterbody.
>
> What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"?

A maritime waterbody are all those waters under the influence of the tides. You can 
review article for natural=coastline. The coastline should be placed in the "high 
water mean spring":https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline


> If you're in Botany Bay or the other bays there such as
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1333569, 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1333569,>  you're not at sea or

> in the sea, or in the ocean.

Botany Bay is part of the ocean, not a separate inland waterbody. You can see 
in the terrain the mark of the tides.
  
> If you swim at a coastal beach you're swimming in the sea and the

> ocean. At the beaches of Botany Bay, no one would say you're in the
> sea or ocean. Nor would they say you're on the coast of Australia.

This is only a colloquial thing. That lacks of verifiability. For example, Dead 
Sea is not a sea, really is a lake.

> Botany Bay is unlike many conventional bays which are on the coastline
> and part of the sea. You're right that these types of bays are part of
> the sea and ocean, and other times they are part of a river, but
> botany bay is really a river nor sea, if anything Botany Bay sounds
> much more like an Esturary.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary

The rules for tagging are in the OSM wiki. Even in Wikipedia says Botany Bay is 
an oceanic bay:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany_Bay
The coastline is a natural feature. You don't mix it with political things. You 
can use the tag boundary=maritime + maritime=base_line to delineate political 
inner waters. Even the boundary runs in the mouth of Botany Bay, therefore is 
respected local things that you mean.
Here there are instructions to tag an 
estuary:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement


Sorry, in the last paragraph is boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline 
for outer edge of internal waters.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

/It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a fully /> 
maritime waterbody.


What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"?


A maritime waterbody are all those waters under the influence of the tides. You can 
review article for natural=coastline. The coastline should be placed in the "high 
water mean spring": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline



If you're in Botany Bay or the other bays there such as
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1333569, 
  you're not at sea or

in the sea, or in the ocean.


Botany Bay is part of the ocean, not a separate inland waterbody. You can see 
in the terrain the mark of the tides.
 

If you swim at a coastal beach you're swimming in the sea and the
ocean. At the beaches of Botany Bay, no one would say you're in the
sea or ocean. Nor would they say you're on the coast of Australia.


This is only a colloquial thing. That lacks of verifiability. For example, Dead 
Sea is not a sea, really is a lake.


Botany Bay is unlike many conventional bays which are on the coastline
and part of the sea. You're right that these types of bays are part of
the sea and ocean, and other times they are part of a river, but
botany bay is really a river nor sea, if anything Botany Bay sounds
much more like an Esturary.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary


The rules for tagging are in the OSM wiki. Even in Wikipedia says Botany Bay is 
an oceanic bay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany_Bay
The coastline is a natural feature. You don't mix it with political things. You 
can use the tag boundary=maritime + maritime=base_line to delineate political 
inner waters. Even the boundary runs in the mouth of Botany Bay, therefore is 
respected local things that you mean.
Here there are instructions to tag an estuary: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement

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