Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-20 Thread Warin

On 20/12/20 6:32 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Dec 20, 2020, 00:01 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

On 20/12/20 6:45 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range?

Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch?

This is a request to review this edit

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Asport%3Dshooting_range=revision=2074293=125712
that ended creating
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dshooting_range


The sport key should be used to indicate the activity .. not the
physical existence. Despite what the OSMwiki says though various
edits.

Where OSM Wiki claims that sport key alone indicates physical 
existence of something?
As far as I know it only describes that it specifies type/purpose of 
something like

leisure=pitch.



Look at the descriptions on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sport


Some examples;

sport    bowls        A place where you can play lawn bowls/lawn bowling.

sport    kitesurfing        To mark a spot for kitesurfing

sport    multi        A sports facility that is suitable for more than 
one sport


sport    racquet        Racquetball facilities, such as racquetball courts

sport    scuba_diving        To mark a spot for scuba diving

sport    surfing        A spot for surfing.



These do not describe the 'sport'/activity but state it is a 
'place'/'spot' i.e. a physical thing.


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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Warin

On 20/12/20 6:45 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range?

Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch?

This is a request to review this edit
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Asport%3Dshooting_range=revision=2074293=125712
that ended creating 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dshooting_range





The sport key should be used to indicate the activity .. not the 
physical existence. Despite what the OSMwiki says though various edits.


The physical presence is give by some other key, such as 
landuse=recreation_ground, pitch, etc...



-

Tangents.

Sports?

Just as skiing can be either snow or water .. shooting by some can be 
taken as bow and arrow or guns ...



Pitches?

While 'pitch' is good for many playing fields it doe not suit so well 
for some e.g. darts, table tennis, chess.



Leisure?

As some have pointed out some sports are played for money .. and some 
for both leisure and money. It would be good to move away from the 
leisure key to the landuse key .. non specific as to leisure or 
'professional'. Yes it could create overlap of various landuses .. 
nothing new there though.





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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Warin

On 20/12/20 9:24 am, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
I've seen these in the US also, but I never knew what they were 
called.  I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise 
when a car drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any 
appreciable way like a speed bump/hump.


We already have a tag for "a traffic calming device that makes noise 
when a car drives over it", which is a rumble strip 
(see: traffic_calming=rumble_strip).  Note, I am talking about the 
kind that go all the way across the road, and not the kind in the 
shoulder of the road that make noise when you veer out of your lane.


I usually think of rumble strips as grooves in the road, but it 
strikes me that these micro-speed-bump things are essentially the same 
thing -- they make noise when a car goes over it to alert the driver 
of something.


I'm uncomfortable with hillock/hillocky as a value. Cursory searches 
seem to indicate that this isn't a term in use, in any flavor of English.



Rumble strips I am familiar with. They not only cause a noise but a 
vibration too, felt by the people inside the vehicle but not a large 
vehicle deflection.


Are the simply a new kind of rumble strip? So 
traffic_calming=rumble_strip, rumble_strip:structure=circle, 
rumble_strip:orientation=transverse


Alternatively perhaps a better name would be rumble circles?




On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:08 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 22:53, Jeremy Harris mailto:j...@wizmail.org>> wrote:
>
> traffic_calming=multi_bump  ?


or
traffic_calming=mini_bumps ?

when they come up with something smaller that could still be
micro_bumps ;-)


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



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-12-02 Thread Warin

On 2/12/20 8:57 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Am Mi., 2. Dez. 2020 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>:


In the UK it looks like the heath service (NHS) will contact
eligible individuals and probably arrange a time and place for
their vaccinations.

As such all that is needed is the location be in OSM and be mapped with the 
appropriate name, no further identification as a vaccine center would be 
required



again, this is an argument that could be applied to everything with a 
postal address. No need to include it in OSM any more.



Many places are well known by their names while their postal addresses 
are unknown by most.



The Tower of London? Way: Tower of London 370870741

The Sydney Opera House? Relation: Sydney Opera House 9596872

Same for the likely vaccination centres - known locally by their names - 
not their addresses.



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-12-02 Thread Warin

On 30/11/20 10:21 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 30. Nov 2020, at 10:46, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

Yes please - I can see planning coming up for vaccinations centers here
in Germany and these are not planned in hospitals but in vacant commercial
buildings which have loads of parking spaces. So using some
healthcare specific tag is probably misleading


healthcare is not related only to hospitals, vaccinations are clearly 
healthcare related. I agree that these facilities are candidates to be shown on 
general purpose maps, as a lot of people will be looking for them.



In the UK it looks like the heath service (NHS) will contact eligible 
individuals and probably arrange a time and place for their vaccinations.
As such all that is needed is the location be in OSM and be mapped with the 
appropriate name, no further identification as a vaccine center would be 
required

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 2/12/20 6:41 am, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not 
be solvable.


How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?


Humans are animals, mammals to be a bit more exact.

The non-human paths I have had most experience of following are made 
by sheep in the mountains.


On reasonably level ground they appear very similar to human made 
paths, and is tempting to follow them.


The problems come as the ground gets steep, and as you no doubt aware 
sheep have small feet which are relatively close together.


The result is that the paths can be deep ruts, that a little more than 
10cm wide, not wide enough for a pair of human walking boots to pass.


Wombat pads are wide enough to follow but the animal is lo to the ground 
and can go through what to a human is inpenatrable scrub - some is 
simply to thiic and interwwoven and some has sharp needle leves that 
penitrate colthing and prick the skin.



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 11:29 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 11:57, St Niklaas > wrote:


A horse track is not a good choice to tend to walk on foot, it
already has its own tag bridle way.


There is a difference between tracks worn by wild animals and 
bridleways. Wild

animal tracks may not be walkable on foot.  Bridleways are intended for
riders on horses AND for walkers.  There may be no physical difference
between a footpath and a bridleway, the distinction being a legal one of
who is allowed access.



Bridal ways are normally constructed. They normally remove obstructions 
to have a convenient route.


Animal pads are formed by numerous treading of animals over the same 
length of country. They go around original obstructions, plants that try 
to grow on the route get trodden into submission.




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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 9:36 pm, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-12-01 11:14, Warin wrote:

The differences are less than 10m. (The points of the green track are 
where data exists, the straight lines between those points simply 
connect the measured points. )


The 'simplify way' in JOSM is normal set for a maximum difference of 
3m as a way of reducing data bloat while sacrificing some accuracy.


What accuracy is optimal for OSM? Why should we sacrifice any accuracy 
at all? Who chose 3m as a tolerance figure? That sounds rather high to 
me - it's the width of a small road, or half a house. If we are going 
to draw a line at all, I would go for something <= 1m.




In some instances the 3m distorted the feature I was dealing with. When 
I set it to 1.5m the result was a good represeentation of the feature. 
So I deal with the resulting representation of the feature.





I note that some roads in OSM are straight lines between towns .. while 
in the real world they are far from straight. This has to deal with the 
road exists but mappers have limited time to enter data. Only in places 
where local mappers have mapped most things that the details are mapped 
better are 'accuracies' of some discussion.


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 9:43 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 1. Dec 2020, at 11:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

The 'Auto' setting may not be 'optimal' for what you want, but as a compromise 
between data bloat and resolution/accuracy it maybe better than a fixed time as 
judged by the developer/manufacture.


I‘ve always recorded tracks with the maximum resolution (which was 1s on my 
unit), because “data bloat” with gpx traces was never an issue, we’re talking 
about text files, and a whole year only has 31.557.600 seconds (and you will be 
eating and sleeping and doing other stuff then recording gps as well).


On my first GPS there was a limit of 2G for the card ... and some of that was 
taken up by the map, routes, speed cameras. Then add in a 3 week holiday with 
tracks and way points each day... all adds up. I chose 'auto - most detailed'.


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 5:07 pm, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:


Think your confusing two terms; resolution, accuracy

I understand that you mean, but check this detail: https://ibb.co/7ycFW5J

At least my impression is that the 1Sec is also more accurate. It's 
obviously only a single test, and the recording happened at a 
different time, so indeed it could be something different.


Instead, in other parts of the track it's clear the error caused by 
the low resolution: https://ibb.co/mC3sKcz


Anyway, it seems that such "Auto" setting is not optimal.



The differences are less than 10m. (The points of the green track are 
where data exists, the straight lines between those points simply 
connect the measured points. )


The 'simplify way' in JOSM is normal set for a maximum difference of 3m 
as a way of reducing data bloat while sacrificing some accuracy.



The 'Auto' setting may not be 'optimal' for what you want, but as a 
compromise between data bloat and resolution/accuracy it maybe better 
than a fixed time as judged by the developer/manufacture.




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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote:
I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the 
sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on 
the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private 
property these trails are on. Since the organization mentioned they 
didn't want to put up "no access" signs, it would be appropriate to 
map the paths as such.


However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general 
solution for tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this 
specific situation.


The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human 
path? Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal 
paths. It would be hard to define it.



Animals come in different sizes.

A pad made by wild horses have sufficient height and width that most 
hikers could use them, this they can get muddy or steep in certain places.


A pad made by wombats can go under plants that would have humans 
crawling on their stomachs not just on their hands and knees.


We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways according to their 
usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently highway=path  is 
defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" and animal 
paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths as 
"generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a 
specific kind of path (something along the lines of 
highway=path+animal=yes) rather than a new type of highway. But again, 
is this enough of a distinction to merit its own tagging scheme?




I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess! 
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example 
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging 
that... terrible.




Cheers, Casper
On 1 Dec 2020, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote:




Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
mailto:lrich...@posteo.net>>:

I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many
trails in my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom
used by people - but it is allowed for people to walk on these
and they are sometimes significant shortcuts so allowing
routing over them in some cases would be good.


+1

After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
believe that they mostly do not apply to the situation here.
People were mainly concerned about wildlife protection, and
Belgian cows are not falling under my idea of "wildlife".




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


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



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


Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 12:24 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 30. Nov 2020, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be widely 
publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further identification 
within OSM?


the same holds true for post offices and townhalls.



Err no. I would expect mass vaccination centers to be heavily publicized in the 
local press (TV, radio, newspapers, etc) with location, opening hours, and 
other operating details
where as the townhall could be mentioned occasionally in the press as part of a 
news articular but without any location and opening hours information.
Post offices here only appear here in advertising brochures and these are 
general in applying to all, they don't give any location information at all.

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote:


I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in 
my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but 
it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes 
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases 
would be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.


- Lukas

On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
mailto:zelonew...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. 
Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
we're describing?


 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

--



I think these are called 'animal pads'? They are usefull for hiking 
where no other path exists as they avoid further damage to vegetation 
and damage to pants/gaiters/shoes. They do also lead hikers astray by 
leading away from the path that they should use. Possibly highway=pad or 
highway=animal_pad?


The tags 'note' and 'comment' are for mappers and not usually used by 
renders, using the tag 'description' may be more helpful?


The tag 'access' should be used where access is restricted within OSM. I 
don't think it is necessary to have signage on the ground to apply 
access tags that are 'community standard' e.g. most home driveways in 
Australia would be regarded as access=private and should be tagged as 
such within OSM despite there being no sign on every home driveway.


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 7:46 am, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:


I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience
with the accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a
comparison of three devices I had personal experience with
including a new Garmin GPSMAP 66sr which I posted here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711

Very interesting!

Here you can find the mapping of my tests with GPSMAP 65s and eTrex 30x:

https://ibb.co/bKvpxYG

It's a circular trail repeated 5 times with one point every second.

I repeated it again with the recording frequency set to Auto, and the 
GPSMAP lost a bit in accuracy, so better to stick to one point every 
second.



Think your confusing two terms;

resolution


accuracy


With increased points along a way there is increased resolution.

The accuracy does not follow with increased number of points unless they 
are all for the same location so averaging those points reduces noise 
thus increasing accuracy.




On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 3:45 PM Lindsay Barnes <mailto:newsspea...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience
with the accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a
comparison of three devices I had personal experience with
including a new Garmin GPSMAP 66sr which I posted here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711

In short, multi-band and multi-GNSS devices do offer in an
increase in precision and accuracy and we're seeing this become
more common in a standard smartphone. However, that level of
precision is not necessary in most cases. It is most helpful in
areas without good satellite imagery coverage or where imagery
lacks reference points (like in wooded trail areas, as mentioned).
This is compounded by the fact that one GPS device has a floor to
how accurate it can be due to the nature of the system and
interference from the natural landscape, as was mentioned.
Furthermore, mult-band and mult-GNSS chips are becoming more
common in smartphones and I would expect this level of precision
available to most mappers without the need for specialty equipment
over the next 5-ish years.

To answer your question about tags, a comment can be added in the
source field of a changeset, but in my opinion most mappers will
not dig too deep into a change to determine how precise the mapper
may have been . Satellite imagery is generally used as the source
of truth and if a mapped feature varies substantially from the
imagery, mappers are inclined to move the feature to match imagery
without researching how the feature was initially created. The
good news is that if satellite imagery in unclear or lacks
reference marks, mappers will usually leave features alone unless
they have personal knowledge of an area or are working off a
tasking manager.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrea Mazzoleni
mailto:amadva...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:

If the intention is to indicate the
error/accuracy/uncertainty then tag/state that. The better
GPS devices give indications of this
error/accuracy/uncertainty.

The big advantage of the dualband is not (only) the increase
in accuracy but the ability to work in not optimal conditions,
like under a clif or other obstacles where you have reflected
GPS signals.

To give you an example, my eTrex device reports 3m of
precision, the new GPSMAP 65s reports 1.8m.
But reality is that I saw errors up to 50m with the eTrex.
It's also difficult to know the precision because it changes
while moving, and it's not recorded in the track.

If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare
them to see how much they vary day to day ... they should
give an idea of problem.

I bought that new device exactly due the frustration of always
seeing a different recording...

My initial tests are really encouraging. Yesterday I repeated
10 times a trail under the woods of a hill, comparing the
results of the eTrex and GPSMAP 65s, and the dualband one has
the recorded tracks a lot more consistent. Something like 10m
vs 2m thickness.

imagery may well be better than survey by consumer GPS

I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as
reference. But most of the trails of my local area are under
the woods (low mountain) and the GPS is the only source of
information.



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


Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 19/11/20 6:59 am, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
With the first Covid-19 vaccines getting approved, many municipalities 
are planning facilities for administering mass vaccination. In Berlin, 
the two former airports Tegel and Tempelhof are planned,

along with some sports facilities.

This raises the question for appropriate tagging.



In Australia, and I would think a portion of the world, there are yearly 
vaccinations for the flu. We don't tag them as they are available from 
the local GP/doctor and even some pharmacies in Australia, so they are 
'expected'.


The  existing facilities cope with the yearly flue vaccine though I hope 
the participation rates are better for the COVID vaccine.


COVID testing centers have also been setup ... but these are usually in 
place for short periods of time and then move or are disbanded waiting 
for the next problem area to occur. Being short term they don't go into 
OSM.


How  long are these mass vaccination centers going to operate for?

I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be 
widely publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further 
identification within OSM?



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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 30/11/20 8:45 am, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:

Hi,

I bought a tracking device that supports GPS dualband (also called 
dual frequency) for high precision mapping, and I'm wondering if I can 
put this information in the "source" tag.


The intention is to make future mappers consider the device precision 
when doing corrections.


Sigh.

If the intention is to indicate the error/accuracy/uncertainty then 
tag/state that. The better GPS devices give indications of this 
error/accuracy/uncertainty.


As the error/accuracy/uncertainty varies with the topography, satellites 
presently in view and the capabilities of the GPS device a statement of 
the GPS device capabilities revel little about the actual on the ground 
situation at the time of survey. Some of these 
error/accuracy/uncertainty can be reduced by taking many GPS tracks over 
several days/week/months and obtaining an average that excludes 
outliers. If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare them 
to see how much they vary day to day ... they should give an idea of 
problem.


In some locations the topography gives reflected signals that produce 
false GPS tracks, in these areas imagery may well be better than survey 
by consumer GPS even with dual band and many constellations are used.




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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-29 Thread Warin

On 27/9/20 5:51 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter

It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should
not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire,
OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter
than alternative sources

> fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here,
both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres 
this fire alone)

will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map



The Australian fires have less long term significance as most of the 
flora has mechanisms to cope with fire, some even needs fire to propagate.




Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation changed.



We don't mapped parked vehicles unless they are 'permanent', same should 
be adopted for fires, floods, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions.


If there is no permanent effect then mapping it is at best a temporary 
thing.





Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as 
destroyed:building=*

until aerial imagery will update)
[deleting buildings and remapping them as they get reconstructed may
be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence]

Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on.

> Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest
or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred?

AFAIK nothing established, see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html
for related discussion about wind damage.



Note:

While you state "landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not 
for how land is used" others disagree with this statement and use the 
tag to indicate how the land is used as would be indicated by the key 
'landuse'.


There is already a tag for a tree covered area "natural=wood" and that 
is a better tag to use for tree covered areas.


Continued use of the key 'landuse' for things other than true land use 
will simply result in the continued denigration of the key with things 
like landuse=sand, landuse=scrub, landuse=mud and so on.




Sep 24, 2020, 23:30 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find
surprising, especially as there are currently even larger fires
that are more widespread all across the Western United States.

I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags
I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to
the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a
'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees that MAKE these
forests have sadly burned down, or substantially so).

Considering that there are literally millions and millions of
acres of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland,
residential, commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm
surprised that OSM doesn't have some well-pondered and actual tags
that reflect this situation. My initial tagging of this (simply
tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was coined on my
part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries for
similar data in the map, I come up empty.

First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say
yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and
might map here, both present and future. The aftermath of this
fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and
for OSM to not reflect this in the map (somehow, better bolstered
than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with fire=perimeter,
start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses
something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and
aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated
myself. So, considering the thousands of structures that burned
(most of them homes), tens of thousands of acres which are
burn-scarred and distinctly different than their landcover,
millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently
tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of
fire=perimeter on a large polygon.

Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and
results (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how
might we choose to do that? Do we have landcover tags which could
replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like
natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, but it or something
like it could work). How and when might we replace these with
something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate
that we map any of this, please say so.

Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors
who have worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters,

SteveA
California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively
safe now that this fire is 100% contained)


On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea  wrote:

 

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2020-08-31 Thread Warin

On 31/8/20 8:25 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you.



Agreed. I see no reason why a way as a member of a simple route relation 
could not have the role 'transport'.




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


Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

2020-08-27 Thread Warin

On 28/8/20 8:05 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 05:31, Richard Welty > wrote:



again in the US, state and county fairgrounds are permanent facilities
which function as event space when the fair is not actually going on.
the midway is usually temporary, but the buildings for, say,
agricultural exhibits are permanent, as is the race track (at many
fairs), which might be for horses or cars.


As Phil said for the UK, in Australia they are Showgrounds, with just 
about every country town having their own.


As per your description, the show is usually only on for one weekend a 
year, but there are permanent buildings & facilities on site, & the 
area is  frequently used as a caravan / tourist park for the rest of 
the year.



In Australia:

"The Show" (where ever it is) as Graeme says, is once a year for a week 
or two. However other events are also held at the same venue.


For example via a quick web search, the Mt Isa Show 1 week per year in 
June, Mt Isa Roedo 1 week per year in August, Mt Isa Motor Show and Swap 
Meet 1 day per year in August and there are others.


Presently in OSM as a recreation ground as Way: Buchannan Park 
Racecourse 455194137. I would assume racing takes place here as well as 
the above 'shows'.



The few I've just checked are currently tagged with a mixture of 
either leisure=park or landuse=recreation_ground. Personally, of the 
two options, I'd prefer rec. ground, which I notice a few of your 
samples were also tagged as.


Thanks

Graeme



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


Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

2020-08-25 Thread Warin

On 25/8/20 11:37 pm, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 25/08/2020 06.04, Paul Allen wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:38, Warin wrote:

Off list.


It looks like you accidentally Bcc'd the list.


It looks like Warin tried to send it to "80hnhtv4agou---" without 
noticing that address is a spoofed¹ tagging@OSM.



Apologies to the list members.

I'll have to be more careful in future of these less than helpful headers!

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


Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

2020-08-24 Thread Warin

Off list.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TAGGING LIST.

Desist.

On 25/8/20 12:50 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home 
location, map
the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we 
(I) live, but come on

don’t edit the building i (we) live in !

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



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

2020-08-22 Thread Warin

On 22/8/20 12:56 am, Supaplex wrote:


I see that I have probably chosen an unfavorable solution to solve the 
problem described. Many seem to accept the basic problem: There is 
only one qualitative category for all kerbs with a height of over ~3 
cm, although in reality there is a significant difference.


I see two alternatives to the proposed solution:

a) (as suggested in the vote section) Deprecate the category "raised" 
and introduce two /new/ values ​​to differentiate it (eg "heightened" 
vs. "regular" or "medium" if there is sematic criticism of "regular")
b) Keep the existing categories, accept that the term "raised" has so 
far included both normal and raised kerbs and merely introduce an 
explicit tag to distinguish /actually/ raised kerbs (e.g. "heightened").


What do you think? Any other or further suggestions?



Rather than use words that are relative to personal perceptions .. why 
not use numbers to say what you mean?



 curb:height=under_3_cm

curb:height=over_3_cm

 curb:height=3_cm_to_10_cm

curb:height=8_cm_to_15_cm


Would that be acceptable? It avoids the words and is readily understood. 
It could lead to people inserting new values... but that is always the 
case, at least with the numbers the new values would be understood.



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


Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

2020-08-17 Thread Warin

On 15/8/20 10:54 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
But what do you do for a place, called a Camping Ground, that is a big 
area of grass, mostly without defined "pitches" & where you can camp 
anyway you like: sleep in your car; on the ground; in a tent / camper 
trailer / caravan / motorhome?



Local context. If you camp in some, most?, German camp grounds you are 
give a designated pitch and 'must' only use that pitch. Adels Grove in 
Queensland, Australia also use the same system. But most Australian camp 
ground allow you to pitch anywhere.



For the anywhere and anything camp grounds, tents=yes and caravans=yes 
fit... IIRC there was something for camper trailers? There is nothing 
for car_camp=yes/no as yet.



While tents=yes/no works and is acceptable tent:capacity=* is more 
detailed. For most Australian camp grounds the capacity would be hard to 
determine, so I just use tents=yes/no.




Any period is acceptable, from one night only up to "by discussion 
with management", although permanent residents aren't allowed.


Thanks

Graeme



On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Both tags allow tents, and both allow camper vans and caravans.



interesting, I would have expected a caravan site to not permit
tents by default.



actually the caravan site puts it a little differently than the
above summary:

“ They may also have some space for tents. If a site is primarily
for tents, it should be tagged as tourism
=camp_site
”




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


Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

2020-08-16 Thread Warin

On 15/8/20 4:49 am, Hidde Wieringa wrote:


Good day,

I am having trouble with the tourism tags caravan_site and camp_site, 
specifically for the use case of finding a place to camp with a tent 
(so not a caravan or a camper van).


My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and 
both allow camper vans and caravans. Both tags may or may not provide 
facilities such as toilets, water, electricity, et cetera. In 
practice, the only thing that differentiates a pitch for a tent versus 
a pitch for a caravan or camper van, is the ground underneath (tents 
require some sort of soft material like grass). This differentiating 
property is not mentioned at all in the Wiki.


- The tag tents=yes/no (only listed in the camp_site Wiki) would be a 
good way to find a place to camp with a tent, but almost none of the 
caravan_site have this tag. All camp_sites in OSM I have camped on, 
allowed tents.
- Some of the caravan_site have been tagged with amenity=parking or 
even surface=asphalt and this would mean that camping with a tent is 
definitely not possible.
- I noticed that both of the tags have status 'de facto', and no 
proposals have been made for the definition of said tags. I found an 
abandoned proposal [1] that has a good discussion about camping [2].
- Some camp_sites have a 'nested' polygon with a caravan_site. This 
seems logical, and the caravan_site can be ignored, and the camp_site 
can be used for camping with a tent.


Statistics from TagInfo: camp_site has ~100,000 uses, and caravan_site 
has ~30,000 uses.


I ran a quick Overpass query for a small number of caravan sites (~15) 
[3]. Some of them note on their website that camping with a tent is 
possible, and the surface of the pitches seems to be grass. I am 
wondering if these should be re-tagged as camp_site, or if I am 
missing something.


My opinion would be that a camp_site should allow staying overnight 
with many types of vehicles/tents, indicated by the tags listed 
clearly on the wiki of camp_site. A caravan_site would allow staying 
overnight with vehicles only, and not allow camping with a tent. 
Concretely the sentence "They may also have some space for tents." on 
[4] is the problem. Replacing the sentence on the wiki with "Camping 
with a tent is not possible." would remove any ambiguity 
differentiating these tags.


Any comments are welcome. I am willing to update the wiki or draft a 
proposal for differentiating these two tags, if necessary.


Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#caravan_site_separated.3F 

[3] https://tyrasd.github.io/overpass-turbo 


[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site



The web site https://opencampingmap.org/#10/48.6100/8.2400/0/1/bef is an 
attempt to encourage mapping of camp and caravan site attributes...



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


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 11/8/20 1:11 pm, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:

the train or trains do not stop where he says they do,

Do they stop at the platform? Yes.
So stop positions maybe mapped.


and i am talking about 400 +,
unverified platforms. which is 200 + stations,
Unverified? Verified by the existing signs? This maybe 'out of date' but 
still verifiable.


How 'inaccurate' are the present stop positions?
How precise is the mapped position required?

Were there stop positions there before?

Is it not better to have some indication rather than nothing?



"They will stay there for ever" unless someone improves them.




Monday, August 10, 2020 9:33 PM -05:00 from Warin
<61sundow...@gmail.com>:
On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:

one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered
yet is what about someone not local
who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all
wrong.


If you find something wrong - correct it.

If the things mapped are deceitful, malicious etc then report it
to the DWG to prevent more of the same.

If the things mapped are better than what was there before then I
would call them improvements and thus beneficial, no point in
being upset by it.

Being local is not a requirement to map, get over it. Local
knowledge is beneficial as it aids mapping things that have local
characteristics - like where trains stop.




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


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is 
what about someone not local

who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong.


If you find something wrong - correct it.


If the things mapped are deceitful, malicious etc then report it to the 
DWG to prevent more of the same.


If the things mapped are better than what was there before then I would 
call them improvements and thus beneficial, no point in being upset by it.


Being local is not a requirement to map, get over it. Local knowledge is 
beneficial as it aids mapping things that have local characteristics - 
like where trains stop.


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


Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 10/8/20 7:06 pm, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote:
Here in Stockholm, trains seem to line up one end of the train with 
one end of the platform. Usually, that's the end where the entrance 
is, but sometimes there are entrances at both ends, so if you arrive 
just in time at an unfamiliar station and find that it's a short 
train, you may be in for a run...



A good reason to map that end in OSM.

So 'local variations' maybe needed.


(BTDT, with a day hike rucksack...)



A day hike is not much of a load.

An overnight hike is a little more, 7 days more still. 10 days is my 
limit... too heavy after that.




2020-08-10 09:20 skrev Warin:

[...]
Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly
others) mapped?

Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people?
That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles
like train then the average of these positions could be used.

Trains here of varying lengths tend to place the middle of the train
at the middle of the platform - thus it is consistent for any train
length. The only exceptions are where the platform is shorter than the
train so the train stops such that the designated car/carriage is
centered on the platform - thus it is still a consistent location for
OSM.


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




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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 8/8/20 8:29 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I still believe shop=bubble_tea is suitable, as these are specific shops where 
you can get only bubble tea. Although bubble tea is something to drink, I would 
rather think of it as a specific kind of sweets, than as a shop where you can 
get a beverage.
Amenity could also be suitable, if you prefer this, especially if the shop is 
welcoming customers to sit down and consume on the premises.



Not all shop=* welcome customer consumption. e.g. shop=supermarket, 
greengrocer, chocolate, convenience.

Shop is a much more specific key compared to the key amenity, I think being 
more specific is a good thing and would support shop over amenity where it is 
applicable.

 




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


Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 8/8/20 10:54 am, Andy Townsend wrote:

Hello,

This is a question that actually arose out of a "how to tag" argument 
that's come to the attention of the DWG in the USA, but it's actually 
easy to describe in terms of data in the UK that I'm familiar with, so 
I'll do that.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12004813 is a 
"public_transport=stop_position" for a local station and is part of 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396491 among other relations.  
The problem is that train lengths vary, and there are a number of stop 
positions, each of which are actually signed on the platform for the 
benefit of the drivers.  From memory I think that there's at least a 
2-car stop, a 4 car stop and 6/8 and 10/12 car stops.  The problem is 
that the current node doesn't correspond to any of them.



Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly 
others) mapped?


Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people? 
That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles 
like train then the average of these positions could be used.


Trains here of varying lengths tend to place the middle of the train at 
the middle of the platform - thus it is consistent for any train length. 
The only exceptions are where the platform is shorter than the train so 
the train stops such that the designated car/carriage is centered on the 
platform - thus it is still a consistent location for OSM.





Maybe the "correct" answer is none of the above?  With a "local 
mapper" hat on I've managed to avoid PTv2 since it basically isn't 
relevant anywhere I normally map things, largely because I don't tend 
to do that near any actual public transport infrastructure, but with a 
DWG hat on I haven't been able to avoid the question, hence me asking 
here.



I have mapped a few bus routes and 'corrected' some PTV2 trains... but 
I'd not hold them up as 'best' examples... only ones that are 'better' 
than what was there before and probably the simplest way that I could 
see to do it.



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

2020-08-04 Thread Warin

On 4/8/20 7:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for 
4 more days.


I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately.

As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could 
easily be construed to include areas under construction, areas of bare 
soil due to use by people as a pathway or road area,
These are 'land use' not 'land cover' and can be tagged separately. They 
are orthogonal.
and many sorts of arid and semi-natural areas, including those that 
are partially covered by shrubs, heath, grass or other sparse vegetation,


The question is, what is dominate? An area of trees that is mostly trees 
should be tagged as trees, if it is mostly bear earth then tagged as 
bare earth...


OSM already has areas of combined trees and shrubs where the general 
guide used is tag what is dominate. No need to single this proposal with 
partial coverings as it applies to all of the present OSM tagging.



or even areas of farmland that are currently fallow.

Again a land use not a land cover.


Please see the discussion and objections on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground


I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not 
sand (natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud, 
but we need a clear, limited definition which does not fit with 
human-use areas like roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites, 
abandoned quarries etc, and there needs to be more consideration about 
when the tag should be used instead of natural=heath and natural=scrub 
in arid regions where there are scattered bushes.


For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some local features 
in your area which would fit the proposed definition, and then come 
back with photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be 
mapped with this tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which 
makes it hard to understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify 
for this tag.



I think this is similar to the tags surface=earth and surface=dirt, both 
are poorly defined.


Perhaps these 2 tags would be better as surface=soil???


The proposal sates "An area covered by soil" so it should be natural=soil.

The description could then be "The upper layer of the planet earth being 
a material typically consisting of a mixture of organic remains, clay, 
and rock particles." ???



Of course the usual exclusions apply;

majority is soil

where a more detailed value applies, use it eg natural=clay if the 
majority of the area is covered by clay.






- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




sent from a phone

> On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani
mailto:michael.mont...@un.org>> wrote:
>
> I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would
like to propose / map.


are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the
border be determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a
smooth transition of these „features“ and neighbouring land which
isn’t completely bare. Did you try to map some of these and if
yes, could you please post a link to an area where a few are mapped?

Transitions from, say, trees to shrubs also occur. The guide is to map 
what is dominate, when domination changes is where the 'border' is. OSM 
does not have tagging for mixed areas, if you want it .. propose it?



Cheers Martin 



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


Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-02 Thread Warin

On 2/8/20 5:41 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the 
confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and 
climates.


this would require a lot of measurements, while a few classes of heights could 
generally be determined by looking at it. It also might require splitting the 
kerbs when there a variations of just a few centimeters. While tagging actual 
heights explicitly is fine, it is not a general alternative to tagging lowered 
kerb / higher than normally expected kerb.


The point is that a 'normally expected curb' may be a considerable obstacle to 
a wheelchair person. And the purpose of this tagging is to indicate wheelchair 
access difficulties.

If someone wants to map those variations, let them. Most curb heights are not 
mapped, indeed most curbs are not mapped.
So having someone spend time mapping minor variations may indicate that they 
think this is important.
 
Once the 'regular' curb height is measured then it is a simple matter, for most who are not concerned with minor variations, to estimate curbs of similar height in the same area.


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


Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-01 Thread Warin

On 31/7/20 12:42 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
In Indonesia, Costa Rica, Peru and Mexico, it is common to find 30cm 
kerbs in older neighborhoods. In Nicaragua there were some that were 
at least 45 cm high, in Leon or Granada.


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



Also occurs near desert areas as they get 5 years rain fall in a day or 
two.


Broken Hill has regular (normal, expected) curb heights of 25 cm, where 
as Sydney has 15 cm .. not only are these in the same country but also 
in the same state.



The word 'regular' is a poor choice for this tagging.

What is being tagged is the wheelchair/stroller/wheelbarrow 
accessibility of the curb. That is what should be implied by the tagging 
used.



Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the 
confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and 
climates.







On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes
mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>>:

when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about
something like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be
considered “raised”

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



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


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



ok, then make it regular: 315

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


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



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - UPRN & USRN

2020-07-26 Thread Warin

On 27/7/20 5:58 am, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

Mappers in the United Kingdom are looking to agree two tags for 
mapping 'Unique Property Reference Numbers' and 'Unique Street 
Reference Numbers'. To support this effort I volunteered to create the 
relevant proposal pages on the wiki.


To view and comment on these please see:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ref:GB:uprn
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ref:GB:usrn

These pages have already been posted to talk-gb and talk-ie (for 
Northern Ireland) a few days ago. As long as there are no major 
blockers here, we will move to the voting stage shortly.




1) minimum time for comments is 2 weeks... don't be in  hurry.


See  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref In particular the wide 
use of *ref:** as a namespace 
 prefix.


The namespace prefix is crowed with country specific uses so I would see 
any objection here to this new use should also address the proliferation 
of country specfic existing uses too.



Record hottest temperature for attic place.
_
_
/According to scientific study, global warming in the Arctic is 
happening twice as fast as for the rest of the planet./

/
/
/For the second day in a row, the archipelago registered 21.2 degrees 
Celsius in the afternoon, just under the 21.3 degrees recorded in 1979, 
meteorologist Kristen Gislefoss told AFP./

/
/
//
/Later in the afternoon, however, at around 6pm local time, it recorded 
21.7 degrees, setting a new all-time record./

/
/
/The island group, dominated by Spitzbergen the only inhabited isle in 
the northern Norway archipelago, sits 1,000 kilometres from the North Pole./


https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/highest-ever-temperature-recorded-in-norwegian-arctic-archipelago.807546
Record hottest temperature for attic place.
_
_
/According to scientific study, global warming in the Arctic is 
happening twice as fast as for the rest of the planet./

/
/
/For the second day in a row, the archipelago registered 21.2 degrees 
Celsius in the afternoon, just under the 21.3 degrees recorded in 1979, 
meteorologist Kristen Gislefoss told AFP./

/
/
//
/Later in the afternoon, however, at around 6pm local time, it recorded 
21.7 degrees, setting a new all-time record./

/
/
/The island group, dominated by Spitzbergen the only inhabited isle in 
the northern Norway archipelago, sits 1,000 kilometres from the North Pole./


https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/highest-ever-temperature-recorded-in-norwegian-arctic-archipelago.807546


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


Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

2020-07-23 Thread Warin

On 22/7/20 12:53 am, Michael Montani wrote:

Dear all,

I wanted to check with you which is the best way to map farmlands 
subject to rotation of crops. An example could be of a farmland used 
for general crop in one part of the year and left it at rest for the 
remaining part of the year, being actually used as a meadow for 
animals grazing there.


Which would be the best way to tag such area?




landuse=farmland

Optionally add?
description=crop rotation
produce=crop (this is non specific... possibly add detail with 
produce=wheat,barley,crop is specific crops are known?)

comment=crop rotation

When a field is fallow then I would not use farmland=meadow as this is 
incorrect ... unless it is truly used as animal grazing or harvesting 
the plants. Some crop lands are used after harvesting from grazing of 
animals but this is a temporary thing that is a small percentage of the 
time, so I don't map it.. too much to keep upto date and that would be 
confusing for maps that don't update on a weekly basis.




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


Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

2020-07-22 Thread Warin

On 21/7/20 9:04 pm, Michal Fabík wrote:

Hi,
in some parts of the world, it's common practice to paint guidepost 
information (destinations, distances etc.) on rock faces, trees, walls 
and similar existing surfaces, rather than use purpose-made plates 
attached to a pole. (Example: 
https://osm.fit.vutbr.cz/fody/files/21255.jpg)



In addition to paint some are carved into the material (I am thinking of 
sandstone rock, trees do grow over inscriptions).



I would not be too worried by this as the renders probably will not be 
bothered to show such detail.




Do you think that these warrant their own tagging style?



No. The material the guidepost is made from is of lesser importance to 
the fact that it is a 'guidepost'.


Or is it acceptable to use information=guidepost, maybe with an 
additional tag (although I can't think of one off the top of my head)?


material=rock/sandstone/*


I know of some 'guideposts' that have no written inscription but conform 
to a style and colour that identifies them to a particular trail, 
similar to the white blaze of the AT. Yes, these are timber posts that 
guide walkers using arrow symbols so the term 'guidepost' suits.



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

2020-07-22 Thread Warin

On 23/7/20 6:42 am, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke:

Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate
entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is
*only* the motorcycle spaces which could be amenity=motorcycle_parking.
Is this really the best way?


I am usually doing it like this (separate entities), it also seems most
useful for drivers / riders, because each group can see where are their
parking lots.


So... I'm not sure I agree with that. Maybe it's different in !US, but 
in the US, motorcycles can (generally) park in any car parking space. 
If we're going to use that argument, why do we have capacity:disabled, 
or indeed capacity:*, rather than modeling those spaces as separate lots?




You asked for 'better' without defining what better means to you.
To me it is 'better' to know where these things are (requires more work 
by the mapper) rather than that they are somewhere inside some area 
(requires less work by the mapper).


Disabled parking to me is 'better' mapped as a separate thing, as is 
truck parking etc.


While a motorcycle may legal park where a car parking space is the same 
cannot be said of a motorcycle parking space given  the usual sized of 
the things.



Tags may be available for those who cannot be bothered with the detail, 
similar observations may be made for surface=paved vs surface=concrete etc.



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


Re: [Tagging] Edited the wiki for building=terrace

2020-07-18 Thread Warin

On 18/7/20 3:29 pm, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:

Hi everyone,

A couple weeks ago, I started a thread regarding how to tag terrace 
buildings when the entire building has a name. I proposed an 
alternative tagging scheme to handle such cases, and others where it's 
clear that the building is one cohesive unit.


As a result of that discussion, I made some edits to the wiki page for 
building=terrace. A review and any feedback is welcome, as are further 
edits if there is further clarification in order, or if there is 
strong objection to the tagging scheme described.

--



In Australia.

A row of terrace houses were commonly built by the one builder in the 
same style and usually in similar floor plans (usually mirrored pairs).


Once built they were sold off as individual homes.


Over time various changes have been made to individual homes. However 
the shared sidewalls have remained as they are structural to the buildings.


Some adjacent houses have been combined into one home usually retaining 
the frontal appearance of two houses and the perimeter of the shared 
side wall.


--

To my knowledge a terrace house MUST share the side walls with the 
adjacent terrace house in the original construction, obviously excluding 
the two end houses. This is not clearly stated in the OSM page.


In rare cases a single terrace house remains as the others have been 
demolished. These are still terrace houses as identified by the 
construction, style, size and floor plan conforming to others in the area.



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


Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

2020-07-15 Thread Warin

On 15/7/20 5:07 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 15. Jul 2020, at 00:49, Justin Tracey  wrote:

If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening 
hours syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions 
to the "access" tags



I would not use opening_hours tag to represent the temporary existence 
of ways if this should mean that the ways are only there some weeks of 
the year.


If the thing is permanently scheduled event then it is not a temporary 
event.


Temporary: Lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent. 
Source - Oxford Dictionary.


Opening hours have no restriction to being more or less than some 
proportion of a year.



Similarly, access is about legal access and not physical existence. 
With the established schemes, you could use conditional on the 
highway, like highway:conditional=footway/service/path @ Time

it is not common, but someone else already had this idea as well:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway%3Aconditional



As you say - not common and probably not rendered/used by any application.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

2020-07-14 Thread Warin

I too would suggest opening_hours.

Seasonal is related to the climate and the climate does vary from one 
year to the next and may be why the tag has a 'loose description'. An 
annual festival is not usually held for an entire climatic season, so I 
would not use it for them. Similar argument with intermittent with the 
added argument that it is not water related.


On 15/7/20 8:48 am, Justin Tracey wrote:
If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening 
hours syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions 
to the "access" tags[1]. Though these tend to represent temporary 
accessibility, not temporary existence the way "intermittent" or 
"seasonal"[2] do. I'll also note that "seasonal" is already used for 
non-waterway features, and depending on how much one wishes to stretch 
the definition of "season" (which is already a pretty loose concept, 
even on OSM), it could maybe be used here too?


 - Justin

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal


On 2020-07-14 12:22 p.m., John Sturdy wrote:
I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a 
festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there 
are paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not 
there when the festival is not happening, although increased wear on 
the ground around them is probably visible much of the time.


Does it make sense to map such paths, perhaps borrowing the 
"intermittent" tag from waterway tagging?


__John






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


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

2020-07-13 Thread Warin
Most Australian deserts cannot be mapped as a consistent land cover but 
as a patchwork combination of differing land covers. As such mapping the 
land cover is a time intensive task and given the usefulness of such 
information compared to other priorities is not something that would be 
done any time soon.



 On 14/7/20 7:47 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Many desert climates can be mapped as natural=sand (for dunes and 
other areas of sand), natural=bare_rock (for bedrock and large 
stones), natural=scree, natural=shingle, or natural=heath (for areas 
of dwarf shrubs), but we still need a tag for unvegetated areas which 
are not sand, rock, stones or vegetation. While these areas are rare 
in many climates, they can cover fairly large spots in some very dry 
areas, and we should provide more precise tagging since 
"natural=desert" could be any of these things (or even natural=scrub)


– Joseph




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


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

2020-07-10 Thread Warin

On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, 
being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter.


To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. 
Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?



Not always.

Sorry to say but some soils have been so polluted combined with the 
resulting soil erosion vegetation has taken some decades to come back.


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania#Ecology




Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 12:42 schreef Michael Montani 
mailto:michael.mont...@un.org>>:


I agree it could be considered as humus. The distinction between
organic soil and humus is ambiguous according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus , but I think it is general
enough to target mostly organic soil.

Shall we consider to add this specification on the tagging? Or
would humus be considered as bare soil anyway?

Thanks

--
*Michael Montani*
GIS Consultant,/Client Solutions Delivery Section/
*Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications
Technologies*
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi|Phone: +39 0831 056985|Mobile: +39
3297193455|Intermission: 158 6985
E-mail:michael.mont...@un.org |www.ungsc.org





*Da:* Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>>
*Inviato:* venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
*A:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
*Oggetto:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:



sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
wrote:
>
> Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than
natural=bare_soil?


+1,
I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has
typically both, organic and mineral components, but organic
components are a hard requirement. Otherwise it would be sand,
or rock, or silt or clay or loam etc. (depending on grain size/s).

Cheers Martin





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


Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-09 Thread Warin

On 9/7/20 12:44 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 8. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke  wrote:

Really? If Alice and Bob each own 50% of "Fairview Heights Apartments", you 
would expect that there are legal property records indicating exactly which half of said 
complex is owner by Alice and which half is owned by Bob? (Note that the *tenants* don't 
own *any* of it.)


both is possible, each one can own a precise list of apartments, or both can 
own 50% of all apartments.



Here apartments are usually sold separately, each as a title dead.
Other than 100% ownership it would be highly unusual for a  50% ownership other 
than by the entire thing being owned by a firm and an individual/firm owning 
50% of the 100% owning firm.





For condominiums, AFAIK, the *definition* of condominium vs. townhouse is that 
you only own a specific *interior* space and *not* the exterior.


welcome to OpenStreetMap, mapping the whole world. You are looking at the 
details in a specific jurisdiction.




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


Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

2020-06-30 Thread Warin

On 30/6/20 11:16 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 30. Jun 2020, at 15:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:

Is there some chance that any of them is valid?


IMHO not, these are likely autocompletion bloopers.



Highly likely these are errors. However it is not impossible that a number 
could be used as a house name.


  I’d support an automatic retagging effort to addr:housenumber (unless there 
is already a different housenumber)


I would not support auto retagging. Contact the mappers and ask them.
I have come across one or two of these, contacted the mapper and one mapper 
agreed that it was an error.
The other mapper argued, settled by web search evidence that it was not the 
name.


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


Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Warin

On 20/6/20 9:35 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume 
 wrote:


I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about 
whether to tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with 
man_made=qanat or waterway=canal+canal=qanat.


There's already 1000 tagged, and they're very patchy geographically. 
It's quite likely there's upwards of 100,000


It would be great to be able to formally deprecate man_made=qanat 
before it becomes de facto.


Hopefully we can get enough interest in this issue for the vote to be 
convincing.



The issue with waterway=qanat could be that it is only applicable to 
those structures that still carry water, while many of them will not 
be in a working state, or maybe I’m misguided?


I could imagine using historic=aqueduct with a subtag aqueduct=qanat 
for all of them, and add the waterway tag to distinguish working from 
nonworking?



The use of the lifecycle prefixes should be used.

disused:*=* for things that can easily be put back into use.

abandoned:*=* for things that require a lot of work and $ to be put back 
into use


and so on.


disused:waterway=canal+canal=qanat ???

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


Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2020-06-19 Thread Warin
Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is 
restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no.


So where a train forbids bicycle transport then bicycle=no should be 
applied or some local default of bicycle=no on trains be documented.


Locally to me some trains require the bicycle to be boxed, but not all 
trains require this. None of this to my knowledge is OSM tagged here, 
many train routes have not been mapped in OSM so this detail is of a 
much lower priority.


On 19/6/20 10:33 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
I think a bicycle route can not declare a rail route to be 
bicycle=yes. I think you should verify that the train is bicycle=yes 
before you call it a transfer. If it isn't, you can't declare it to be 
a part of your waymarked bicycle route, can you?


Apart from that, if a router uses the bicycle route relation, it 
should alway check the ways themselves for access, no matter what the 
route relation says.


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:02 schreef Francesco Ansanelli 
mailto:franci...@gmail.com>>:


Dear Volker and Peter,

I agree with you both...
The question was born for a bike+train (funicular actually), but
it can be implemented in a generic way to fix similar cases.
Insead of interrupting the relation on the railway, we can put
the other public transport one as a member with a "transfer" role.
Of course, I assume the transfer relation will have 1 or 2 common
points with our trip (stops):
let's say a train starts from station A, but we take it at station
B with our bike, we get off at station C, but the last station
will be Z.
I don't think this could be an issue, but should be considered for
any future implementation.
Transfer relations should also consider the parent's relation type
(ex. route=bicycle, implies bicycle=yes on the train route).
What do you think?

Francesco

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


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



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


Re: [Tagging] charging stations

2020-06-15 Thread Warin

On 15/6/20 10:26 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 10:29, Johannes Werner via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:



cable=yes/no/length seems like a great idea. It does however not
solve OPs problem that a cable is not a socket.


However, a cable at a charging station will have a connector at the 
free end.

The cable does not end with bare wires.



I'd think one end of the cable is fixed to the charging station.

Specifying the connector needs to be done for ether a cable or a fixed 
connection.




The question then is how to designate that connector.  Is it a plug or 
a socket?

The answer is not as clear as many think.  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_connector#Plug_and_socket_connectors

Despite what the Wikipedia article says, the terminology isn't as 
clear-cut as

it implies and different industries have different, conflicting naming
conventions.  Within a single industry different naming conventions may be
applied to different styles of connectors.

Some go by the contact type, with males contacts being plugs and female
contacts being sockets, but hermaphroditic connectors and mixed-contact
connectors complicate things.  Some go by fixed vs free, with fixed 
connectors
being jacks and free connectors being plugs, but by that convention a 
standard

power extension lead has two plugs, but one of those two plugs looks like
a wall socket except it's not fixed to a wall.

Where a coupling mechanism is involved, such as the coupling ring on
a circular connector, some industries will refer to the connector with
the coupling ring as a plug and the connector it mates with as a socket.
The connector with the coupling ring is always free, the mating connector
may be fixed or free.

That's just scratching the surface.  Is the connector at the end of 
the cable
a plug or a jack or a socket or a free receptacle or something else?  
It depends

what the specification for that particular type of connector (such as
Chademo) calls it.

It's probably safer to tag the connector type (Chademo, etc.) and not try
to decide whether it's a plug or socket or receptacle or jack.



What ever connector type it should be compatible with the car 
connector/cable jack/jill/plug/socket/male/female/etc. So I'd not worry 
about it until there is some problem somewhere that requires a tag, 
until then leave it off.




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


Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

2020-06-15 Thread Warin

On 16/6/20 4:30 am, Hidde Wieringa wrote:


Good evening,

In the region where I live there are 657 objects tagged with 
amenity=bicycle_parking, of which 457 have no bicycle_parking tag at 
all. I would say that classification of the bicycle_parking is 
undertagged in general.


 Under tagged, yes. Generally I don't bother - use what is there and 
get on with it (sorry if that offends).


I have not noted any handlebar bicycle parking here in Australia.


I'd not botehr with formal approval - see how it goes in the wild.



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


Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

2020-06-14 Thread Warin

Try
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/3382975

~ 10 years ago.

On 15/6/20 7:52 am, Jo wrote:
If you enabled expert mode, you can download from Overpass directly 
into JOSM.


Polyglot

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 23:29 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:





Jun 14, 2020, 22:55 by vosc...@gmail.com :

Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the
original import to check these.things?

Good idea, any idea how to identify accounts that added this tags
into OSM?

Standard way to to this failed - loading all objects tagged with
this in Overpass Turbo
would fail - 600 MB of data would crash browser.

Next idea is to hunt for various download areas across USA, but I
hope for a better method.

without knowing what information these codes carry ore once
carried,

That is why I created pages documenting what kind of info is
stored in imported tags
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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



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


Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-14 Thread Warin

On 14/6/20 10:59 pm, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:

Martin Koppenhoefer:

==
Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not
there any more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap?
Through all the years I have never encountered anything like this
mapped in OpenStreetMap.



Repeating my previous post - just so it can be seen that I replied.

Way: former Buninyong line (802945258)



Way: Buninyong Line (802945251)



Way: Ballarat - Buninyong line (168429101)





Note I put these in OHM ~2 years ago.


==

I have deleted some powerlines tagged
as removed.


Typically because they have been removed and replaced with
underground lines, which are correctly mapped.

I might take a year before traces of the poles are completely gone as
farmes plow over the spots and put new crops there.

But lines in the air will be removed without a trace.

And of course highways are changed all the time.
When a 4-way intersection is replaced with a roundabout we de not keep
the four pieces of the road inside the roundabout tagged as razed. We
have the history for that.

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



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


Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-14 Thread Warin

On 15/6/20 1:09 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Regarding power lines: it is helpful mapping razed power lines as 
razed and not removing them completely, because in many cases some of 
the satellite pictures still show the towers, or at least the concrete 
foundations. This way you avd resurrection.



Where it no longer exits on satellite imagery?


I think that can be removed with out fear of someone restoring it from 
imagery available to OSM editors.




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


Re: [Tagging] Charging stations

2020-06-14 Thread Warin

On 15/6/20 1:37 am, patata wrote:

Currently socket:type1 and socket:type2 are not clarifying if the
station has a cable or we must bring our own.
Since the connector is not necessarily a socket,


Agreed.


it is being discussed
on our telegram group https://t.me/openchargemap to change all sockets
into connector. Only add socket or cable where it needs to be
differentiated.

Examples :
connector:type1:socket
connector:type2:cable
connector:ccs
connector:chademo


Where a cable exists (is present) then why not tag :

cable=yes/no/ length (in metres)  ???

Cables would be wired in to prevent theft?

On one one OSM entry there should be one connector with any required cable tag 
(and voltage/amperage etc)?

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


Re: [Tagging] Replace the "DecoTurf" value

2020-06-13 Thread Warin

On 13/6/20 7:03 am, Steve Lee wrote:
"DecoTurf" is not a common name, but a brand name. It  is also not a 
genericized trademark. We may need a broader term to classify 
surfaces. "Hardcourt" seems to be used exclusively for tennis courts, 
literally does not refer to a certain material. However, most of 
hardcourt surface are acrylic based, which is one of the ITF's 
classification of tennis court surface types. So I think "acrylic"  is 
a suitable value to classify the surface of the courts.



Acrylic I tend to associate with paint and plastics.


From satellite imagery I simply used 'paved' where I can determine it 
is not a 'natural' surface.



Only some ~600 uses of DecoTurf.

Only some ~20 uses of Hardcourt.

Surface is used some 31,000,000 times so the above 2 may not be rendered 
anyway being such a small proportion.. possibly lumped into 'paved' if 
anyone bothers.




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


Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-10 Thread Warin

On 10/6/20 11:12 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:

From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text
except for cases
like opening hours.


Opening_hours provides for free form text.

I expressed my point unclearly.  It appears from the examples that the
condition is free-form text.  However, when the condition specifies
opening hours then those hours should be expressed in the standard
form for opening_hours.  That opening_hours allows free-form text is
a digression.  Unless you were seriously suggesting that we
abuse opening_hours as a way of introducing free-form text into
a condition even though it appears (to me, at least) that conditions
permit free-form text anyway.


? Abuse opening_hours by 'introducing' free form text? It is allowed, so 
not an introduction nor an abuse.


I was not aware that condition allowed free form text. Both tags are 
poorly documented for this on the wiki.




Do you concur that a conditional such as "(low water)" is permissible?  If
so, do you agree that it is a better solution than "seasonal" or 
"intermittent"?



Yes, I think so, but the documentation for free form text is not clear. 
Is open_hours better? I don't know.




Using "seasonal" is unhelpful because low water is possible (if unlikely)
during all seasons.  Using "intermittent" is somewhat better.

But both "seasonal" and "intermittent" are (currently) only defined as
applying to water(ish) features themselves, not to things that are under
those features.  Changes would have to be made to routers to allow
either seasonal or intermittent to be interpreted correctly when applied
to ways.  Routers already (I hope) interpret conditionals.



 Some roads are closed in winter but this could be applied as either 
seasonal or conditional depending on the mapper.


I think I have tagged some but cannot recall which way I did it.

Would be usefull to do a tag info search for the more popular one and 
then document it on the wiki.


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


Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Warin

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) 
to pass.
If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be 
tagged in some other way.

Descriptions of 'path':


On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote:

"If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), and
 it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for
 pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a
 highway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "


 to this:

 "If a path is wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m), it
 is often better tagged as ahighway =track 
  orhighway =service 
.

 "



Or possibly:

A path should not be wide enough for 4-wheel-vehicles (wider than 2 m),for these wider ways see highway 
=track 
  orhighway =service 
.




On 10/6/20 10:29 am, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:


The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if it 
is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same physical 
characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently used for 
hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the other side.

That also spills into is it a track or a service (driveway)? Depends on if it 
goes to a barn or a house! But I can’t tell without trespassing, how can I map 
it?

First step, I think, is to be less pedantic about function on things that look 
exactly like a track. Mappers in all the areas I’ve looked at will tag a way 
that is unpaved and about the width of a four wheeled vehicle as a track 
regardless of current use. Maybe it is being used as a driveway. Maybe it is 
being used as a bicycling/hiking/equestrian trail. Maybe it accesses a field. 
Maybe it hasn’t been used for a while and just hasn’t decayed or been overgrown 
into nothing. Who knows? But it looks like a track. Saying that the way “isn’t 
for forestry or agricultural use” so it can’t be a track is worthless: Real 
world mappers have voted otherwise with their tagging.

In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
the fact that they don't 'go anywhere'. They typically serve only a
single establishment - public roads that serve multiple establishments
are typically at least 'unclassified'.



In Australia the word 'track' is used in a much broader sense than that used in 
the OSM wiki.

The OSM tagging practice in Australia uses 'track' in that same broader sense - 
so not just agriculture and forestry but also other operators/uses e.g. 
National Parks.
Some of these 'tracks' were put in to enable fire fighting - usually locally 
called 'fire trails'.
Maps generally show these in the same way as forestry trails hence the 
preference to tag them the same way in OSM as 'we' are used to seeing them 
rendered that way.

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


Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-09 Thread Warin

On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:



But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the
specification of :conditional as per the wiki.


From 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_time_and_other_conditional_restrictions


    For a full description and more examples, please see the 
conditional restrictions page.


The page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
isn't as clear as it could be in defining the syntax.  I went by these 
examples:


Road condition: For example, *wet*, *snow*. It is noted that the 
condition *wet* corresponds to *:wet* in e.g. maxspeed:wet 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:maxspeed:wet=edit=1>=*. 
Using *wet* as a condition is recommended in order to streamline the 
syntax of restriction tags ("maxspeed:wet" was introduced at a time 
when no proper way of tagging conditional restrictions existed).


User group: The restriction relates to a specific user group, e.g. 
doctor, disabled, emergency, female.


From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for 
cases

like opening hours.



Opening_hours provides for free form text.


From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours#Summary_syntax


*comment:* |"|text|"|

   A short comment (wrapped in |"| but not containing any |"| within)
   showing applicable restrictions or specifications, e.g. |"children
   only"|, |"limited service"|, or |"reservation by phone"|.
   This comment is intended to be displayed in applications and not to
   be interpreted automatically.



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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-09 Thread Warin

On 9/6/20 6:46 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map 
it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM


Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any 
more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years 
I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.



Way: former Buninyong line (802945258)

Way: Buninyong Line (802945251)

Way: Ballarat - Buninyong line (168429101)


Note I put these in OHM ~2 years ago.


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


Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-09 Thread Warin

On 9/6/20 1:10 pm, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:

 access=no
 access:conditional=yes @ (above water)

Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to 
use opening hours?
opening_hours= "above water" ???

:conditional is widely used for mapping:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=conditional



But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the specification of 
:conditional as per the wiki.
Is there anything to say :conditional will accept text entries and 
those are be used by any render?
The key opening_hours does accept text based entries as per the wiki. I think 
some renders do accept the text entries?


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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 9/6/20 12:10 pm, Jack Armstrong wrote:


On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:


The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are
gone, no longer here, vanished.



At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether 
a thing was a dead parrot or not ;)


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp




I, for one, have been drawing on that. If only for my own amusement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 8/6/20 10:16 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com
:

"this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes,
this land might be "natural" now, including being "treed,"
but I could still build a patio and bbq there after perhaps
cutting down some trees, it is my residential land and I am
allowed to do that, meaning it has residential use, even if
it is "unimproved" presently.

It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.



I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for;
shade, to sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think
about things. People park their cars, caravans and boats under them.

They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my residence.

If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will
grass and flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped
as residential landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous.



These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to
appear to be removing property rights from residential
landowners (by diminishing landuse=residential areas)

Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect
property rights and may remove them?
That is ridiculous.

but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do
remain in a natural state, while distinctly and presently
"having" residential landuse.

For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a clearly
incorrect mapping.



Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that
does not mean they are not parks because of the land cover.

I would contend similar consideration by held for residential
landuse.

Yes, landuse=residential may include areas with tree, I fully agree here.

But "portions of these areas do remain in a natural state" with 
residential status limited
solely to legal status (land ownership, legal right to build something 
there and start using

this land as landuse=residential) cases seem quite dubious to me.



As far as I know some of the trees are 'natural' on my place... I still 
use them.


How do you know that the 'residential status' is limited to the legal 
and not additionally used for the personal enjoyment of the people 
residing there?




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


Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 10:33, Cornelis > wrote:



With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey
as normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls
dry roughly every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may
be resolved with correct/additional tags? After reading the
discussion I think at least three tags should be added:

Then some questions on other tags currently in use:
• historic=bridge seems ok to me, but I'm not sure if it is a
conflict with building=bridge. Do I have to choose either one?


They are not mutually exclusive.  If it is a tourist attraction then 
it could

also have tourism=attraction.

• intermittent seems to only be in use with water bodies, as far
as i can tell after reading the wiki article.
• seasonal is somewhat related with intermittent but in use for
other things as well. Should I remove these two, nonetheless?


Neither seem appropriate to me.  However, what you should have is 
access=no
to prevent routers from including it in walking routes. What you could 
do, to

show it is occasionally usable (if it is), is something like:

    access=no
    access:conditional=yes @ (above water)



I would keep seasonal but make it more specific

seasonal=autumn

Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be 
better to use opening hours?


opening_hours= "above water" ???


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


Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 9/6/20 12:15 am, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:



Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com :


The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as
a hazard.


railway=abandoned
hazard=tagging_discussions


+1


+1

"Mostly harmless but infuriating" ?

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Warin

On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Warin, Jack,

your comments are really off my main point.
We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different 
opinions on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in 
OSM. In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page 
gets completely rewritten by one of the participants in the thread 
explicitly stating that razed railways should be /removed/ from OSM.

This is basically against good practice in OSM.
In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled 
railways, the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is 
clearly wrong. Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and 
cycle routes that retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong 
with adding railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the 
road or the cycle route.


Railway installations are major sites present in our environment,



The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone, 
no longer here, vanished.


The one I am thinking of has visible things at one end and a few bits 
elsewhere, those I would leave on OSM as they 'exist'.


But to map it where there is nothing left.. to me that is deceptive. The 
other mapper has extended one of the things I left mapped so that an 
embankment runs over roads, through car-parks, a building and a playing 
field. That does not exist now, it may have decades ago ... but not 
today and not for quite a few years.



and there is no good reason to remove them from the map, whether they 
are actively used or only indirectly "visible".

Just two other observations to put this in context:
We have plenty of underground water courses, oil or gas pipelines 
where only few objects on the surface indicate their underground 
existence - no-one would object to having them in the map data, 
including the underground parts.


Agreed - because they exist. I know there is an underground railway near 
me because I use it, it is not viable 'on the ground'. There is a 
drainage channel near me that I can see as entry and exit places .. its 
precise route I don't know so I use the est sources to estimate its 
route. I do my best to map things that exist. I don't think OSM is the 
place for things that no longer exist in any physical way.



Another completely different indication that old stuff could be of 
interest to tourists: when I moved to the UK from continental Europe 
in 1978 I was positively surprised to see, on the standard OS maps for 
hikers, references to Roamn and Saxon sites galore, tyipiclley in the 
form of "site of ..." and of many country paths and tracks labeled 
with their Roman or Saxon names, even though the present-day structure 
is much younger - they only retrace the Roman way like the present-day 
street in the first example on the wiki page retraces a former railway..



If there is something to see there .. then map that. I would not map a 
railway as a railway if all that can be seen is a board that has 
information about the old railway, I would map it as a tourist sign only 
- not a railway.


Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, 
map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM.




BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping 
old raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped, 
and to not write in the wiki that they should be removed.
BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove 
already mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors.



On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I need to reopen this thread.
>
>  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have
been
> replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this
is one
> of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been
> conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic
value and
> for that reason should be in OSM.


As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.

If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no
longer
exist.

Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that
should be
in OSM yet people map it...

A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagg

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-06-07 Thread Warin

On 31/5/20 9:20 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




Yes, there are 1000 things in the Australian bush that'll kill you 
:-), but none of them will actually eat you! (not even Drop Bears! 
https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/mammals/drop-bear/ :-)) 
Same applies to (virtually?) all of Western Europe, but how about 
North America, Africa, Asia & so on? Do we have / need a way of 
tagging that bears (or whatever) may be encountered while walking in 
this area?





A dead carcass will be deposed of in the Australian bush by animals, 
birds and/or insects.


So, yes your dead body will be eaten in the Australian bush... in some 
places quite quickly. Usually bones and hair will be left behind some of 
it as scat.



As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such as some 
favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic applied to 
dangerous areas caused by wildlife.


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


Re: [Tagging] Education reform - a minor change on my proposal

2020-06-06 Thread Warin

On 6/6/20 9:04 pm, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:

I have changed how buildings in the campus should be tagged.





Some suggestions?

Just use 'outer boundary' rather than try to cover all the different 
kinds of outer boundaries that may exist.


===How to tag individual schools in this scheme===

Outer boundary of a school is tagged accordingly with education tag.

Buildings should not have education key if that key is the same as the 
outer boundary.


Note that the outer boundary could be a relation.


Add radio to the teaching medium, in case these still exist in some part 
of the world. They used to exist in Australia but that has now 
transferred over to satellite internet - so 'online' may cover it.


| optional || {{Tag|medium}} || face-to-face/postal/online/radio || Is 
it a face-to-face school or a distance education institute?




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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-06 Thread Warin

On 7/6/20 1:31 am, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 11:23, Andy Townsend  wrote:

On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote:
在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03,Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道:

As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.

OSM is not *only* for general tourist.

I bet even a general tourist would be interested if they could be assured that 
a route was flat :)

And didn't have buildings or factories built on it ;)


Home owners would not be happy with tourists walking through lunch because OSM 
has a tourist/railline line through their house.

Factory OH people would be very upset with tourists walking through the 
factory because OSM has a tourist/railline line through the factory.
The tourists would not be impressed with the 'railway' either if there was 
nothing 'railway' to see, even if the route is flat.

A general tourist walking along a road that has no sign of a railway would not 
be impressed if it were shown as a railway on OSM.
Other road users would be perplexed if the road were shown as a railway...



If it's a recognized route that's signposted as something like
"Historical Railway Trail" then it can be a relation.


As a walking route, yes. It is no longer a railway, that is in the past.


  If it's not
signposted and there's no trace of it left on the ground, what exactly
is being mapped?


History?


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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-06 Thread Warin

On 7/6/20 1:52 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 6. Jun 2020, at 03:58, Jack Armstrong  wrote:


The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in 
the world today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades 
ago. If there is something that remains of a previous railroad, then 
it can be mapped in some way. If there is /*nothing* *remaining*/ of 
what used to be a railroad, it should be out-of-scope.




whether you find traces might depend how hard you look for them. In 
most cases there will be something left of a railroad, but you might 
not be able to recognize it or you will simply not see it because the 
traces are rare.



How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground 
penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist?



Where something has been demolished and replaced with something else, 
should the old thing remain in OSM?



And yes I am thinking of old railway routes that have gone and been 
replaced with roads/rail trails etc.



To me - the old thing is no longer there, the new thing has overlay-ed 
it and replaces it. If people want to map old things .. well their place 
should be in OHM not OSM.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

2020-06-05 Thread Warin

On 5/6/20 10:46 am, Greg Troxel wrote:


Sure.  I tend to think that if something is semantically sensible and
can be represented, it's good to tag it, and then rendering is another
story.  I think pretty much everyone agrees that landuse=residential and
natural=wood are both sensible to represent.  And that how they ought to
be rendered in a general purpose landuse/landcover style is much less
settled.


Rendering is another area.

My view: the render has to decide what is more 'important' - land cover or land 
use and then how to each group.

I note how the land use military is mapped - strips so the land cover under it 
could be seen. If all land use were map similarity then that could work.

Alternatively land cover could be represented as a symbol like tree areas 
symbol. Loose the background colours for all land covers and use symbols.
Land uses would then be solid covers. Does not work for wwater so I think this 
would lead to more problems.

I think I prefer the land use mapped as less 'important' - thus land cover gets 
solid colours...

---
Whatever the renders decide we should map what is there, residential with or 
without trees, grass, flowers, scrub, whatever.


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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

2020-06-05 Thread Warin

On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

"this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this
land might be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could
still build a patio and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some
trees, it is my residential land and I am allowed to do that,
meaning it has residential use, even if it is "unimproved" presently.

It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.



I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for; shade, to 
sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think about things. 
People park their cars, caravans and boats under them.


They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my residence.

If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will grass and 
flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped as residential 
landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous.




These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to appear
to be removing property rights from residential landowners (by
diminishing landuse=residential areas)

Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect property 
rights and may remove them?

That is ridiculous.

but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do
remain in a natural state, while distinctly and presently "having"
residential landuse.

For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a clearly 
incorrect mapping.



Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that does not 
mean they are not parks because of the land cover.


I would contend similar consideration by held for residential landuse.

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


Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

2020-06-05 Thread Warin

On 5/6/20 10:06 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

And you are missing

(1) word "mainly"
(2) "Note: Two values of landuse=* may be view as not strictly land use.
   These are landuse=grass and landuse=forest. Please refer to the 
pages

   of these for more information."



As usual I disagree with  both those misuse of the key landuse.

The value landuse=forest should not be used for any tree covered area 
... use the existing value natural=wood for that, even if 'managed'.


See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for more discussion on 
this topic.



-

Grass misuse is historical. It can also be tagged landcover=grass.


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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-05 Thread Warin

On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:

I need to reopen this thread.

 I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the 
razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been 
replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one 
of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been 
conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former 
railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and 
for that reason should be in OSM.



As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a 
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.


If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no longer 
exist.


Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses, 
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that should be 
in OSM yet people map it...


A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old 
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.





.


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


Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

2020-06-04 Thread Warin

On 3/6/20 5:37 am, Florian Lohoff wrote:


For me overlapping natural or landuses are broken. An area can either
be a natural=wood or a landuse=farmland. You cant include the same
area in two types of usages or naturals.


You can.

Farm land here can have trees to shelter animals from wind/sun and also to 
provide a wildlife corridor/refuge.
So an area of landuse=farmland with an inner or overlap of natural=wood can be 
correct.

An area of landuse=farmland with any other landuse could be wrong. However some 
areas are used for more than one thing.


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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-03 Thread Warin

On 2/6/20 9:44 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Volker Schmidt > wrote:


Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I
know the completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall
ex-railway.


There are three ex-railways in my area (possibly more). Even though the
rail part of those railways has mostly been removed, the way part of those
railways is still mostly in evidence.  Apart from embankments, 
cuttings, bridges
and tunnels there are the green corridors - either tree-lined hedges 
or trails cut
through woods. Some sections have been repurposed as footpaths and/or 
cycle
paths.  A few short sections have been resurrected as heritage 
railways.  The places
where all traces have been removed and build over are very few and far 
between.


I could delete those tiny sections of ex-railway that somebody spent time
mapping, but then it loses the coherence that aids understanding (unless I
shove the pieces into some sort of relation).

I understand the perspective of the purists, and one day a purist may come
along and remove sections where all traces have gone. But I have other 
things

I could be mapping so I won't bother doing it myself.

--
Paul




Here is an entry by some one who thinks it should be in OSM ...

Way: former Ballarat - Buninyong line (802945247)

  Tags:
    "name"="former Ballarat - Buninyong line"
    "embankment"="yes"
    "railway"="razed"
    "ruined:railway"="rail"


If you look you will see that this 'embankment' does not EXIST ... there 
are two car parks over it that show no sign of any embankment. There is 
a building over it ... roads ... it does not exist.


Yet the person 'maps' it.

Note I put it into OHM some 2 years ago and removed it from OSM. Should 
I report them to DWG?


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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-01 Thread Warin

On 2/6/20 11:52 am, Phake Nick wrote:



在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26,Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> 寫道:


On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible
> objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some
> pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have
> documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing
makes
> sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some
> end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the
length of
> mapping them, should find space in OSM.
> In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from
> the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not
> correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all
> its partsmakes sense.


Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories,
shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical)
information
in OSM.

The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where
there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.


Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain 
visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop, road) 
have been made on top of their original site.


In the case I am thinking of it is not one house, one factory, one shop, 
one road ... there are many. There is no sign left in this area. Gone. 
Totally vanished.



So that cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should 
be removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each 
individual cases.


> Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without
> consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.



Disagree.

Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the
author or
following editors.

If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing
editors but
where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.

If you are not sure of the use or validity of something then it would 
also be a good idea to ask those who might know about it.



How much time do you think I should spend searching for these people who 
might know of it? And then once found how much time should I spend 
trying to contact them?



Think about what you are asking an unpaid mapper to do?

I would think contacting the author and/or past editors of the item in 
OSM is enough.



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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

2020-06-01 Thread Warin

On 29/5/20 8:01 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 28, 2020, 23:54 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

"treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly
problematic to OSM tagging.

Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland 
(landuse=farmland) or

residential (landuse=residential).

Yes, the same area may be tree covered and residential at the same time.

Yes, "tree-covered area" meaning for landuse=forest mismatches strict 
meanning

of bot landuse and forest.


I differ.


I would use natural=wood for the tree coverage.

Then there is no conflict with a landuse tag.

And natural=wood does mean tree covered ... and the key natural 
incorporates 'non natural' i.e things altered or managed by man.



The key landuse should be to used describe the primary use of land by 
humans, not the land cover but it's use.


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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-01 Thread Warin

On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible 
objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some 
pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have 
documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes 
sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some 
end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of 
mapping them, should find space in OSM.
In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from 
the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not 
correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all 
its partsmakes sense.



Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories, 
shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical) information 
in OSM.


The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where 
there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.



Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without 
consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.




Disagree.

Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the author or 
following editors.


If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but 
where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.



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


Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-27 Thread Warin

On 27/5/20 11:42 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:


What has been proposed is to add a new way of tagging of what with the 
present tagging could be:described with

highway=path plus sac_scale=hiking
with a new combination of
highway=path plus path=hiking



I don't think that will help.

Replacing sac_scale=hiking or even triple tagging with path=hiking can 
lead to the same problems that presently exist.



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


Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-26 Thread Warin

On 26/5/20 9:49 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:


Richard Fairhurst:

highway=mountain_path works for me for tagging mountain paths.


Along that line, to retag all the unpaved highway=path's in Nederland 
with something more specific, we would need at least forest_path, 
dune_path, heath_path, grass_quai and peat_path.



Umm highway=flat_path might be better :) And then there might be a need 
for highway=hill_path ... :))



-

For me highway=footway and highway=path without any other tags are the 
same thing. Introducing yet another tag for similar paths/footways may 
lead to more confused tagging of these things.


I think the use of sub tags would lead to cleaner tagging.



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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-05-24 Thread Warin

On 4/5/20 1:12 am, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:


So, this discussion gravitates towards using landuse=common for those 
African urban freely accessible multipurpose open spaces, which I 
fully support.


Implementing this change requires the following actions:

- Editing the leisure=common wiki page, in French and in English (I'll 
do that)




You will need to be very clear what a 'common' is and how it is 
different from other tags such as amenity=marketplace, leisure=park.



To me? Something like...

A 'common' is an area available for use by the local community. Examples 
include a weekly market (daily markets should be tag 
amenity=marketplace), community meetings/celebrations. A 'leisure=park' 
is more appropriate for areas set aside for individual or small group 
rest and recreation.


- Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in downstream 
cartographic styles, would be even better if the color matched the 
surface=* so that sandy surfaces don't appear green.


- Reinstating the rendering of leisure=common in JOSM's default style 
(it recently changed to grey to mark deprecation). (I'll open a JOSM 
ticket


- Altering QA rules (JOSM Validator and Osmose) so that the 
leisure=common deprecation only applies to the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain, where commons have a legal definition and designation=common 
must be used for them. (I'll open a JOSM ticket but if someone has 
prior experience interacting with the Osmose people, that would be nice)



On 5/3/20 4:19 PM, severin.menard via Tagging wrote:
Je suis d'accord avec Pierre : le tag landuse=common convient bien à 
ces espaces ouverts dans les villages et villes africaines et un parc 
n'a pas grand-chose à voir avec.


I agree with Pierre: the tag landuse=common is well suited to these 
open spaces in African villages and towns and a park has little to do 
with it.



‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 21:59, Pierre Béland via Talk-ml 
 a écrit :


Like others, I did map many of these. I can tell you that we often 
see a common space in center of african villages, often near the 
school,  and  it is surely not green and have no facilities like in 
the Nordic countries parks.


People have to understand that there are often no infrastructures in 
African villages. But young people still gather and play.


I dont think that the OSM tagging schema should reflect the legal 
status in specific countries like UK. Various tags can reflect 
various realities.  And leisure=common seems to be quite well 
adapted to Africa and dont exist to stretch the legal defininition 
of UK.


When the tag is used in UK, I would understand that the UK 
contributors want to follow a certain rule particular to their country.


But I dont agree to deprecate the the leisure=common tag for Africa.



Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 15 h 34 min 57 s UTC−4, Jean-Marc Liotier 
 a écrit :



Here is a 360° picture of a square in Dakar:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA - larger than a
street (it occupies a whole city block), used as a multipurpose common
area (pickup soccer games are a staple but parking or lounging around
also occur, and the occasional popular event) and usually surfaced with
sand or whatever the ground is.

We have long tagged it leisure=common (389 ways in Senegal and 486 in
Mali according to http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/TqN) - which is a bit of
stretch from the British legal definition, but worked well enough and
did not conflict with its British usage. But leisure=common is now
deprecated

So, what should we use instead ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon suggests using
leisure=park - which isn't too much of a stretch functionally but 
evokes

greenery that does not occur here (though British commons are just as
green and we were happy with leisure=common)... Any other ideas ? Or 
I'm

going to use leisure=park+surface=sand !






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


Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

2020-05-24 Thread Warin

On 25/5/20 8:28 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 24, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com:

The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically
applicable here.
My questions are:
Is Italy the only country with this problem?

Poland used to be similar, though police sometimes setup trap where 
they were fining people -
in sudden campaigns with several traps appearing for several hours 
every few months.


Favorite traps included cycleways crossing roads, where cyclists were 
obligated by law to dismount

due to missing cyclist crossings.
Some routes had such crossing every 200 - 250m, nobody was following 
that law.
bicycle=dismount I have used, despite common practice not to dismount. 
Similar to maxspeed, sign posted and legal yet many go faster.


I was tagging legal status, and had some discussions with other mappers
whatever it is desirable to do it this way.

Currently most of missing cyclist crossings are added[1], signs (for 
example in forests)
more commonly explicitly allow bicycles, oneway:bicycle=no is becoming 
more common

at least in some cities...

[1] It turned out that blocker was completely idiotic law requiring 
pedestrian + cyclist crossings
to be at least 7 m wide, for smaller ones including cyclist crossing 
was against rules.


Is there any better proposal for tagging the situation "from all I
can see on the ground, you are allowed ride through with your bicycle"

Not sure what I would do in cases where access law as written and 
access law as executed

would completely diverge.

Setup new tags specially to allow to tag both verifiable legal status 
and verifiable

de facto status?

bicycle=no
bicycle:de_facto=permissive

(even bicycle=permissive, bicycle:ignored_law=no would be an 
improvement over

current state of not tagging legal status)

It is out of OSM scope but I also had some successes with requests to 
add missing
"except bicycles" under various traffic signs (on average in last 
years - about one added every month),
in some cases it was simpler than inventing fitting tagging scheme for 
really absurd cases.



"Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of fools."

The law cannot recognize the wise so all are deemed fools.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

2020-05-24 Thread Warin

Local to me the 'Great North Walk' is signposted in many different ways.

e.g.
Post with directional arrows 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_Looking-into-Mulbinga-Street.jpg
Some of these posts have no name plate so those may not be recognized by 
those unfamiliar.


Signboard 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_GNW-sign-on-the-Lyrebird-Trail.jpg


Register 
http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_GNW-walkers-register.jpg


There are signboards indicating ways to the Great North Walk .. 
unfortunately labeled 'Great North Walk' leaving off the 'To the' so 
leading to miss-tagging of these paths/tracks - they are 'approach' 
paths/tracks/roads.



On 21/5/20 11:34 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:
This wikipedia "Trail blazing" 
 article (which takes 
trailblazed and wayarked as meaning the same thing), has a nice 
picture collection of way markings.


On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:22, Andy Townsend > wrote:


On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com
:

It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually
signposted;
some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint
blazes in
the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the
tree line.

Not a native speaker, but I thought that paint blazes,
guideposts, cairns, signs, surface markings, special traffic signs,
information boards, markings by cutting on trees, ribbons,
wooden poles etc all may be used to signpost a trail.


My 2p from England:

I suspect it'd vary around the world but I'd certainly say "that
trail is signposted" if all there was was a characteristic paint
blaze that "everyone recognises" as matching a particular trail.

Best Regards,

Andy



_



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


Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-23 Thread Warin

I tag for the use of the 'path/road/etc'.
If it is for a walker then I tag the width for the walker, usually this 
is the width at ground level but there are ones where the smaller width 
is at hip level (rocks) so I tag the width there.
A width of 0.3 me3ans I have to remove my pack and push it through 
infront of me. If the walk length is more than 3 days I may have to 
remove things from the pack and make 2 trips.


On 23/5/20 2:20 am, Tod Fitch wrote:


On May 22, 2020, at 5:24 AM, Ture Pålsson via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:




22 maj 2020 kl. 12:52 skrev Daniel Westergren >:


[…] Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of 
highway=path. I was discussing width of paths in another forum. For 
a forest path, would you say width is measured as the actual tread 
on the ground only? For a runner and MTB cyclist that would make 
sense, but for a hiker with a big backpack a width of 0.3 m may mean 
they think it's not possible to walk there.


We need loading_gauge=* tag. :-)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge)



Width is, at least in my area, going to be a hard issue.

For background, I have been volunteering on trail maintenance teams in 
a near by designated wilderness area where the vegetation is largely 
chaparral (scrub) and this has shaped my opinion.


Many of our trails were originally ranch access roads (highway=track) 
and in some short sections here and there where things were scraped to 
bedrock the trails remains that wide, maybe 3m. However the 
overwhelming majority of the trail mileage have been overgrown to the 
point of being impassible on foot without constant maintenance. Our 
standard for maintaining a section of trail is that the tread (where 
your foot meets the ground) should be a minimum of 0.5m and that the 
width at shoulder level should be 2m. In the occasional areas where we 
have trees, etc., we strive for about 3m vertical clearance so that an 
equestrian can get through. Being a designated wilderness, no power 
tools or wheeled vehicles are allowed so access is by hiking and work 
is performed with hand tools.


If you look to motor vehicle roads, width is of the traveled way, not 
of the right of way nor of the way cleared of vegetation (i.e. side 
drainage or shoulders, etc.). From that point of view, a trail width 
should likely be the tread width. But as noted by Daniel, a hiker with 
a big pack might be more interested in the width at pack/shoulder 
level (“loading gauge”).


The issues in mapping trail width in my area include:

 1. Chaparral is fast growing. So that 0.5m/2m width trail we fixed
today will shrink each rainy season and without maintenance is
likely to become impassible in maybe 5 years time.
 2. Trail maintenance teams are lucky to be able to clean up 2km of
trail in a session. So it takes multiple sessions to keep a
typical trail maintained and for any given trail those are
sessions occur over a number of years (we target areas where
things are worst).

The result is that trail width is highly variable both over the length 
of a trail and over time. If mapped in high detail, the width you map 
this hiking season will be wrong next year. Heck, it might even be 
wrong next month depending on what month of the year your did your survey.


For what it is worth, I don’t usually tag the width of the trails. 
Mostly for the above reasons: To do it properly I’d have to be taking 
very detailed field notes and have to re-survey each trail at least 
once a year. And even if I did that, when I look at the typical data 
consumer I see that they usually have stale OSM data so any attempt to 
keep OSM up to the day correct on field conditions wouldn’t be very 
useful anyway.



Cheers!
Tod



___
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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-23 Thread Warin
As it is the minimum width that will limit passage, I would prefer to 
see the minimum with tagged not the average width.


On 23/5/20 3:23 am, Daniel Westergren wrote:


In the short term, it's okay to tag an estimated, average width.
If it's 1 to 0.3 meters, use 0.5 - this still shows a difference
from a path which is 1.5 to 4 meters wide (which you might
estimate as 2.5 meters?).


Perhaps it could be added to the 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath that width is 
for the tread on the ground and that for sections that vary in width, 
break them down or estimate an average width? Then it will be more 
clear for mappers who are reading about how to use width for 
highway=path particularly.


I would also suggest that smoothness is added in the Tagging section 
of that page, as it's very helpful when smoothness for a path is 
added. For now, it's only in the "Useful combination" section and may 
be missed by many. And by the way, for StreetComplete it's now being 
discussed to filter for only highway=path|track that either has a 
smoothness tag with a value of bad or worse, or surface=ground or 
equivalent, when asking for MTB difficulty.


And lastly, what if something is also added for surface, to describe 
why it's an important tag to distinguish different kinds of paths from 
each other?


/Daniel


-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:22 AM Jake Edmonds via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

I’m going to throw this in rather randomly but the reason i
don’t tag width and surface is that the footpaths I’m mapping
vary widely. Getting wider and thinner and going from gravel
to dirt to sections with many trees roots. Plus the surface
tag is rather subjective.

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone


On 22 May 2020, at 17:48, Daniel Westergren mailto:wes...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Yeah, I think in terms of tagging we don't get further in
this discussion. But it has been very valuable to me. I've
done a couple of video tutorials about the basics of mapping
trails in OSM and the next one will be about what tags to use
and why.

They are in Swedish, but I'm planning to do English versions
later as well. It's probably been done before, but I guess we
need to use different ways in this widespread community to
reach mappers to get more useful data to work with.

And regarding rendering of surface... Yeah, both an advantage
and disadvantage of OSM is its diversity. What for many
sounds like the only logical way may conflict with the views
of others.

Great work with your rendering btw! I'd love to discuss more
about that outside of this mailing list, as I'm also helping
out with creating a custom rendering for trail running
purposes. OpenStreetMap is indeed very urban-centred still,
which brings me back to my opening lines of this thread, that
OSM hasn't caught up with how lots of people actually are
using it now, like routing and rendering for hiking, cycling
and running, areas where Google Maps etc. are and will
continue to be way behind.

Thanks for valuable input!!

/Daniel

Den fre 22 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Andy Townsend
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:

On 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> And there actually seems to be a pull request finally
solving the
> paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!?
>
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137
>
> If that makes it to the default map it will certainly
help people to
> tag surface, because they will see that it makes sense.
>
>
I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound like it, but this
does read
somewhat as if rendering "surface" on paths is somehow
"obvious" and
"easy", and it's an "oversight" that the OSM Carto folks
haven't been
doing it since basically forever.

It's not - I think that pnorman's comment of

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399#issuecomment-596656115

still applies:

 > I'm of the opinion that the only way we can get the
cartographic
"space" to render unpaved surfaces is to drop something
else, like
access restriction rendering.

I think that there's another problem with the standard
style as well -
aside from surface rendering it's hugely biased towards
urban centres.
Looking at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you
can't see any 

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-22 Thread Warin

On 22/5/20 6:24 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 22. May 2020, at 03:10, Mike Thompson  wrote:

This seems to contradict what Mateusz  said. "Way used solely to access a 
private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter
whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes wide."


While I have not so far split service ways because of length, I would not 
completely reject the idea either (based on local conditions, in my area it 
isn’t necessary to do it).
I know Mateusz was exaggerating, but clearly a 22 lanes wide way would very 
improbably be considered a service=driveway. More likely you would consider it 
a leisure=pitch ;-)

He wrote “used solely to access a residence”, which is less probable the longer 
the way is (typically you would also use it to access places between its start 
and end), so it is not necessarily contradicting.



To access some residences in Australia you have to drive ~100km off the public 
roads.

While there might (or might not) be a water tank along the way the fact remains 
the road is the driveway.
And no amazon etc will not deliver, you have to drive to there 'local' depot.



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

2020-05-21 Thread Warin

On 22/5/20 3:20 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
Nodes with roles in the route relation deserve another proposal to 
make it "official". The CAI-project sounds promising, I will look into 
it once this business is done! My wife is learning Italian, so maybe 
she can even translate the text (into Dutch, for our post-corona 
hiking and biking season?) :)

For the moment, I think it has no impact on this proposal.



+1. Leave nodes out of this proposal. Let us get the roles for ways done.


Discussions on nodes (guideposts, maps, signposts etc) can be left for 
later.




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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

2020-05-20 Thread Warin

On 20/5/20 10:49 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal.

I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK
(but oif unwanted - feel free to revert)

At least for me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about
and clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns
(as such complicated routes are highly unusual in my region)



Hummm...


The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main 
route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.


Why is one excluded where the other is not? Is that is going to be 
difficult to explain in a simple way?




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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

2020-05-20 Thread Warin

Hi,


Thanks for doing this!


The excursion description is

"A signposted side track which rejoins at roughly the same point where 
it left, usually to visit a point of interest."


That would exclude a track that 'rejoins' at exactly the same point.

Most of the ones I have come across are simple single track that go to 
the 'point of interest' and return is along the same track.



Suggest?

"A signposted track which leads to one or more point/s of interests. The 
return maybe along the same track or a different track provided it 
rejoins very close to point where the main track was left. Examples are 
tracks that lead to a view, drinking water, a campsite, a toilet."


More verbose, but there it is.




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


Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-20 Thread Warin

On 21/5/20 4:28 am, Mike Thompson wrote:

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:

However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or 
footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or 
emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as highway=cycleway 
or =footway or =path if they are designed and designated for pedestrians or 
bicycles.

It is gravel.  Rough width is 2.5 meters (I tagged it as such).


Do you have an example of a particular path or road which is debatable?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/798886886#map=16/40.4656/-105.1320
I mapped this originally as highway=path, it was changed by another
user to highway=track.  I just changed it back this morning.

Note that this is a brand new  trail that just opened to the public
within the last few weeks.  Imagery currently available in OSM editing
software will not show the trail as it now exists. There was a track
there previously, and the new trail overlaid parts of it, those that
it didn't overlay are still mapped as "track."



There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'.

Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example 'motor_vehicle=private, 
comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for maintenance only'

  

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


Re: [Tagging] Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email

2020-05-19 Thread Warin

On 19/5/20 8:01 pm, European Water Project wrote:

Thank you all for responding. I've commented in order

Dear François & Jo,

There are 240,000 drinking fountains  nodes (with the two tag forms) 
tagged globally. Although, your suggestion seems a reasonable one, 
unless there is master plan for unique id maintenance, I am loathe to 
adding ref tags which might end up being poorly maintained stale 
pollution.


Dear Mateusz,

If I understand correctly, I can query the database for historic data 
states.  For how long is the historic data maintained ? Do all of the 
servers below have the historic data ?


'https://lz4.overpass-api.de/api/interpreter';
' https://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter';
'https://overpass.kumi.systems/api/interpreter';
'http://overpass.openstreetmap.fr/api/interpreter';
'https://z.overpass-api.de/api/interpreter';
'https://overpass.nchc.org.tw';

Dear Simon,

What do you mean by  "+ version" ? Are you referring to a timestamp or 
a something else ?


The version number.

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173244595#map=18/-33.89163/151.27633

Way 173244595 is presently version 13. Version 1 would be when it was 
first created.




For ways, which I am only starting to look to consider, maybe I could 
look for objects with a similar geometric center for the replacement 
object.


Best regards,

Stuart


On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 11:41, Simon Poole > wrote:


It should be noted that (for Nodes) id + version is actually
stable (Ways and Relations are more complicated).

So if you have id + version, you can

- check that it is the current version of the object (all fine and
dandy)

- check if there is a later (undeleted) version, check if it
(depending on your criteria) is still the "same object", update
version in your reference

- if the last version is deleted or your criteria for it being the
same object doesn't hold, search in the vicinity for a replacement
object.

Doing the same for Ways and Relations requires including a
location reference of some kind as geometry changes are not
reflected in the versions, but can work in principle the same.

Simon

Am 19.05.2020 um 09:43 schrieb European Water Project:

Dear All,

I am looking for a way to create permanent links  to specific
objects (fountains and cafés) with images within our application
... and I have a couple of questions.

How quickly do OSM node and ways numbers mutate ?  What
percentage should I expect to change each year.  If the
percentage of ids mutates slowly enough .. maybe this is still
the best bad short term option ?

I was pointed to this wiki :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permanent_ID

On the discussion page, it is mentioned that a solution is being
targeted for end 2020 . Will there be a tool to translate actual
osm node and ways numbers to the new permalink ids.

Apparently Mangrove uses GEO URI to create perma links towards
objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI_scheme. How do
they deal with node repositioning ?  I could create a link name
with first 5 latitude num followed by first 5 longitude num...
but as soon as someone moves the node I would get a broken link...

Thanks for your help and advice

Best regards,

Stuart



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

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


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



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

2020-05-12 Thread Warin

On 13/5/20 9:28 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 13. May 2020, at 00:27, Tod Fitch  wrote:

Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it?

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard




there is also documentation.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard



'Documented' as a draft proposal over 10 years ago.

A simple search on the OSMwiki would reveal nothing, so the 
'documentation' is old, and hard to find.





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


Re: [Tagging] Is there any tagging scheme for carillons already?

2020-05-08 Thread Warin

On 7/5/20 1:54 am, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 14:03 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 6. May 2020, at 13:14, lukas-...@web.de wrote:

In the wiki I found bell_tower=* (but without a carillon-specific 
value) and I think a carillon does not have to be a bell_tower at 
all, so these are two different things.



I am aware of this instance:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37410673


Also Loughborough Carillon https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156539835

To which I have added a few missing tags and bell_tower=carillon, it 
doesn't seem far off the mark considering other uses in 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bell_tower#values




https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8016458  Canberra Australia.

Tagged:

building=yes
height=50
man_made=tower
name=National Carillon
start_date=1970
tourism=attraction
tower:construction=concrete
tower:type=bell_tower
wikidata=Q494865

Added tags:

website=https://www.nca.gov.au/national-carillon

bell_tower=carillon


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


Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-07 Thread Warin

On 8/5/20 8:41 am, Paul Norman via Tagging wrote:

On 2020-05-07 11:49 a.m., Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

So, what's the next step?


As a next step, I'd map motorcycle taxis as amenity=motorcycle_taxi. 
Vote with your mapping.



+1


If those opposed don't come up with something better then they will have 
to tolerate it.





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


Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-05-01 Thread Warin

On 1/5/20 9:00 pm, Florimond Berthoux wrote:

+1 for highway=pedestrian + area=yes
That how we map a town square in France (and every where else I guess ?)



To me highway=pedestrian is more for where for where foot traffic passes 
rather than a place where people stop and meet.





Le mer. 29 avr. 2020 à 23:18, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> a écrit :


I agree, the area in this spot
(https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA) is a
moderly sized open area of bare earth, with buildings on 3 sides
and a paved streets on a long side. It appears to be used for
sports and recreation, and for walking. I suspect it might be a
"de facto" leisure=pitch - in the USA it would be an "empty lot"
used for soccer/baseball/etc. It could also be a
highway=pedestrian + area=yes - an open pedestrian area or "town
square" - those are usually paved in some way in developed
countries, but that's not a requirement. It does not appear to be
a park.

There was not any formal discussion to deprecate leisure=common,
and mappers are certainly free to keep using that tag. It was
marked as deprecated by one wiki user, about a year ago.

But since the tag it is not well defined, it will be hard for
database users to interpret what it means.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:41 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:




Apr 29, 2020, 21:37 by skqu...@rushpost.com
:

On 4/29/20 14:34, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

Here is a 360° picture of a square in Dakar:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA
- larger than a
street (it occupies a whole city block), used as a
multipurpose common
area (pickup soccer games are a staple but parking or
lounging around
also occur, and the occasional popular event) and
usually surfaced with
sand or whatever the ground is.

We have long tagged it leisure=common (389 ways in
Senegal and 486 in
Mali according to http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/TqN) -
which is a bit of
stretch from the British legal definition, but worked
well enough and
did not conflict with its British usage. But
leisure=common is now
deprecated

So, what should we use instead ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon
suggests using
leisure=park - which isn't too much of a stretch
functionally but evokes
greenery that does not occur here (though British
commons are just as
green and we were happy with leisure=common)... Any
other ideas ? Or I'm
going to use leisure=park+surface=sand !


While leisure=park might work, there is also
leisure=recreation_ground
to consider.


leisure=recreation_ground sounds fitting to me and is without
baggage of legal
status bundled into leisure=commons

This specific place looks like leisure=pitch. And for example
in Poland some
sport pitch may be used for an occasional event, festival of
various types.

Note: I am unfamiliar with on-the-ground situation in Africa
___



--
Florimond Berthoux



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


Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

2020-04-30 Thread Warin

On 1/5/20 9:14 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff mailto:f...@zz.de>> 
wrote:


I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug,
either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both.


Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that?

I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them!



And trees used as wind breaks and to provide shelter for animals (both 
'farm' and 'natural').



A problem is the OSM definition may suggest only those areas used for 
tillage are 'farmland'.


Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they 
are 'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub...


Some areas are used for both military (a rocket range) and for farming 
(they get bunkers for use when firing takes place!). They are 
natural=scrub/sand/lake (dry salt)/*.


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


Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-04-30 Thread Warin

On 30/4/20 8:08 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:59 Uhr schrieb Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>:


On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier
mailto:j...@liotier.org>>:

The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way,
does not seem
to have currency in Openstreetmap.



place=square


Needs to have a name, many of these have no names.



if these are significant open areas that are used for recreation and 
to meet each other, it seems improbable that they do not have names. 
Can you back your claim with real world examples?



Not my claim .. but


On 30/4/20 10:06 am, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

On 4/30/20 12:20 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

place=square seems to fit the bill


place=square exists within the place=* hierarchy which , as documented 
in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, is used to 
characterize named locations. What we tag here is almost always unnamed.


Our goal is to record the nature of that space - and most importantly 
its functionality as a common free space.




Note the statement "What we tag here is almost always unnamed." Fairly 
clear to me.



I also would not say 'used for recreation' as that may not be true in 
all situations.


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


Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-04-30 Thread Warin

On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier 
mailto:j...@liotier.org>>:


The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does
not seem
to have currency in Openstreetmap.



place=square


Needs to have a name, many of these have no names.


landuse=plaza, open urban space that can be used for public meetings or 
gatherings???




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


Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-04-29 Thread Warin

On 30/4/20 6:40 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Apr 29, 2020, 21:37 by skqu...@rushpost.com:

On 4/29/20 14:34, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

Here is a 360° picture of a square in Dakar:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA -
larger than a
street (it occupies a whole city block), used as a
multipurpose common
area (pickup soccer games are a staple but parking or lounging
around
also occur, and the occasional popular event) and usually
surfaced with
sand or whatever the ground is.

We have long tagged it leisure=common (389 ways in Senegal and
486 in
Mali according to http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/TqN) - which is a
bit of
stretch from the British legal definition, but worked well
enough and
did not conflict with its British usage. But leisure=common is now
deprecated

So, what should we use instead ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon
suggests using
leisure=park - which isn't too much of a stretch functionally
but evokes
greenery that does not occur here (though British commons are
just as
green and we were happy with leisure=common)... Any other
ideas ? Or I'm
going to use leisure=park+surface=sand !


While leisure=park might work, there is also leisure=recreation_ground
to consider.


leisure=recreation_ground sounds fitting to me and is without baggage 
of legal

status bundled into leisure=commons



It may look like sports are played there to you and me.

It may resemble a park to others.

However none of those may be the case!

Or it may not be the primary use. Simply viewing it without local 
knowledge may well cause errors!



The local mapper should say what the area is primarily used for ..

It may be used for a weekly market (some 'weeks' are 6 days in Africa).

It may be used for social/political gatherings.


--

The surface is not grass. I would hesitate to call it sand, could be 
ground. In any case 'unpaved' could be used.


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy

2020-04-28 Thread Warin

On 29/4/20 5:55 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

But healthcare=pharmacy was never proposed.



There is no requirement that it must be proposed.



It was added by a preset in iD.

At the time the key “healthcare=“ was proposed, the idea of changing 
amenity=pharmacy was opposed by several mappers during the RFC period 
(in 2010), so the idea to change to shop=pharmacy was dropped.



I support the key 'healthcare'. Pharmacies are part of heath care and 
should migrate to the key 'healthcare'.


Past tagging practices can evolve over time.



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


Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

2020-04-23 Thread Warin

On 20/4/20 1:51 am, Robert Castle wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to OSM and have been I've been making some edits on Main 
Street of my hometown. All the buildings seem to have been mapped, but 
many of the businesses are not mapped or have incomplete information, 
so I've been adding in the business names that aren't there and 
editing the ones that have incomplete info. I noticed that some 
businesses are polygons whereas others are points within a polygon. I 
was wondering which way is correct.


Best,
Rob




Welcome!

You can see the diversity of views in answer to your question.

Presently .. do what seems right for you and the things you map.


Some things in OSM have;

more than one way to map them.

one way that is better than other ways of mapping.


Don't be too fussed, as long as the tags make sense to a human someone 
can figure out what was meant and translate it into the latest OSM 
tagging method... and that does change over time.


Please do make changeset comments as an aid to what was mapped.. it 
helps is you comeback to it some time later.


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging and rendering places without a name

2020-04-21 Thread Warin

On 21/4/20 6:59 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Di., 21. Apr. 2020 um 06:03 Uhr schrieb Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>:


So by the definition I see no issue of having place without a name
tag, as long as it has a name :)
Errr If it has a name, tag it. If you don't know its name then how
do you know it is a place?



for example settlements. You might assume that a human settlement has 
a name. Humans are like this, they assign names to important (for 
them) things to facilitate communication about them. On the other 
hand, without on the ground knowledge, you will not be able to know 
the name. It is completely logical that remote mappers will add 
hamlets, villages (and in the past probably even towns) from aerial 
imagery, without knowing their name.



A remote mapper may map landuse=residential.. and that will render. 
However a remote mapper may not be able to distinguish the difference 
between a hamlet and a village particularly where cultural difference 
exist.
I would encourage the remote mapper to map landuse and leave the place 
tag alone.


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging and rendering places without a name

2020-04-20 Thread Warin

On 21/4/20 5:31 am, Florimond Berthoux wrote:

Hi Hidde, welcome,

The wiki definition is « Used to indicate that a particular location 
is known by a particular name, to indicate what sort of "place" it is. 
A place tag should exist for every significant human settlements 
(city, town, suburb, etc.) and also for notable unpopulated, named 
places. »


So place is used to precise that :
1. there is place at this position or on this area
2. it has a name
3. to define what kind of place

So by the definition I see no issue of having place without a name 
tag, as long as it has a name :)
Errr If it has a name, tag it. If you don't know its name then how do 
you know it is a place?


This is different than landuse for instance :
A farm has the landuse farmyard, and may have other landuse like 
greenhouse_horticulture, plant_nursery, orchard, meadow, ...
A barn alone or with some other building in the middle of a meadow can 
has landuse=farmyard but it’s not a farm, it could has a 
place=locality if it has a name.



If a building has a name then use the name tag on the building, do not 
add a tag place=* to it!






Le sam. 18 avr. 2020 à 22:23, Hidde Wieringa > a écrit :


Hello,

This is the first time posting to this mailing list. In case this
is the wrong place to post my question, feel free to point me to
the correct mailing list/forum.

I opened an issue in the OSM carto Github repository
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4115)
with the question if places tagged with place=* but without a name
could be rendered. The follow-up pull request
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4120
proposes a rendering for unnamed places.

A discussion erupted, about the conceptual consequences of
rendering a place without a name. This goes against the wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place) where the tag
name=* is marked as required. The first line in the wiki is /"Used
to indicate that a particular location is known by a particular
name, to indicate what sort of "place" it is. [...]"/. However
indicating what sort of place it is, does not require a name.
Indicating that a place of some sort exists at a certain location
is also valuable data (a quick count of Nigeria gives ~9800 nodes
of places without a name versus ~69000 nodes of places with a name).

I wish to question the assumption that every place always has or
requires a name. The comment of 'sommerluk' on the Github issue

(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4115#issuecomment-612847759)
indicates that there may indeed be small populated places without
a name, although larger populated places always have a name in
practice.

Also, regions of the world where on-the-ground mapping is not
popular will mostly be mapped by remote mappers. Because of that,
mapped places will usually not get a name (yet), because mappers
are not locally familiar with the place. The data is still useful
for humanitarian aid (for example see
https://tasks.hotosm.org/contribute?difficulty=ALL=nigeria
for the many projects in the HOT tasking manager for improving
data in Nigeria, in particular missing residential areas).
Rendering these places in a visual way makes using the data
easier. Later, the unnamed places could still be given a name by a
mapper with that knowledge.

The tough question is when some place is considered a 'place' and
may be mapped when the name is unknown.

I am curious about further reactions on this topic.

Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/

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



--
Florimond Berthoux

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



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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >