Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

[Malcolm Herring]

On 04/02/2013 18:54, Douglas Fraser wrote:

Have design decisions been made?


Only the design outline has thus far been discussed. In summary, any 
feature tagged as a port, harbour, marina or anchorage will have the 
relevant symbol rendered on the OpenSeaMap Seamark layer. The renderer 
will communicate the co-ordinates of this symbol to a separate database 
which will overlay an invisible button over that position in the 
OpenSeaMap Harbour layer. A right-click on the symbol will then invoke a 
pop-up panel that will display the meta-data. The Harbour layer database 
will have extracted the metadata form divers public database sources, 
including the OSM tags on any feature that invoked the Seamark layer 
symbol. This metadata would include LOCODEs where available.



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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/2/4 Douglas Fraser :
> as for LOCODE and locode, it is an acronym and so I tend to capitalize it.
> but if iata isn't...  There are LOCODE / locode / harbour:locode / unlocode
> tags - what are the general guidelines about cleaning up tag confetti?


general tagging guidelines say: no abbreviations, no capitalization,
underscores instead of spaces

this would mean the key should be:
"united_nations_code_for_trade_and_transport_locations"  ;-)

but this is not very handy. There are a few exceptions to the general
guidelines, e.g. "ref", and especially in the context of imports you
will usually find a lot of abbreviations (not sure how welcome they
are, this surely saves a lot of space (if uncompressed) but (human)
readability is much worse. A key like
"united_nations_code_for_trade_and_transport_locations" looks absurd
on the first glimpse but it is much easier to understand than "locode"
or "un/locode". Nonetheless personally I'd go for "un/locode" and let
people discover in the wiki what this is about.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

[Douglas Fraser]

well, I'd like to contribute but I don't want to stomp all over already done work - we have a fairly complete and 
authoritative set of LOCODEs, including the shipping carrier specific ones (shipping companies feel free to make up 
their own set of LOCODEs sometimes)

so the big question is where should I stick this locode data?  Have design 
decisions been made?


On 04/02/2013 18:48, Malcolm Herring wrote:

On 04/02/2013 18:26, Douglas Fraser wrote:

The data management issues are important, so I'm inclined to update the
wiki page to direct people to OpenSeamap as that seems like a more
logical place to keep specialized metadata like this and they'd be more
inclined to keep the data updated.


OpenSeaMap currently map the physical features of ports, but not metadata. We do have a project underway to do this, 
but it is in its infancy. So if you need this anytime soon, please don't wait for us!



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




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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

[Malcolm Herring]

On 04/02/2013 18:26, Douglas Fraser wrote:

The data management issues are important, so I'm inclined to update the
wiki page to direct people to OpenSeamap as that seems like a more
logical place to keep specialized metadata like this and they'd be more
inclined to keep the data updated.


OpenSeaMap currently map the physical features of ports, but not 
metadata. We do have a project underway to do this, but it is in its 
infancy. So if you need this anytime soon, please don't wait for us!



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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

[Douglas Fraser]

I was going to add some text about port terminals to the wiki page - I'll update what I can.  There is at least one 
thing that is incorrect.  The data management issues are important, so I'm inclined to update the wiki page to direct 
people to OpenSeamap as that seems like a more logical place to keep specialized metadata like this and they'd be more 
inclined to keep the data updated.  The UN list does change, so letting dead data sit around in OSM doesn't seem great.


as for LOCODE and locode, it is an acronym and so I tend to capitalize it.  but if iata isn't...  There are LOCODE / 
locode / harbour:locode / unlocode tags - what are the general guidelines about cleaning up tag confetti?



On 04/02/2013 16:42, Brad Neuhauser wrote:

Doug,

Since you're pretty knowledgable about this topic, it'd probably also be good if you could flesh out the harbor:LOCODE 
page on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:harbour:LOCODE). It's part of this big harbour proposal: 
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Harbour 


Cheers, Brad

PS--one side question: shouldn't LOCODE be locode (that is, lowercase)?  that's how iata and icao are handled for 
aerodromes...


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM, mailto:doug.fra...@tarisoga.com>> wrote:

Followup to my post:
I am here at the London OSM Hack Weekend and spoke to someone who explained 
to me the larger issues and questions
about importing / updating metadata like LOCODEs that can't be surveyed - 
i.e. data where managing the process of
keeping it current may be troublesome.
I agree with everything he explained and so now I don't think updating the 
LOCODEs that are present, etc would be
the best idea.  Letting the existing tags die off sounds like the best idea.
But locodes are assigned to harbours and they are surveyable, can be 
verified by the public, all that sort of
thing.  So the UN list could be used to update or verify that cities have 
appropriate harbour tags associated with
them.  IIRC, Long Beach (or LA) was one test case I looked at and it didn't 
have a tag that i'd expected.
So now my idea is to check the harbour tags against the UN data (this could 
also be done for rail stations) and
then determine how much data is missing and what ought to be improved.
A related idea is that port terminals (for commercial shipping) are 
becoming prominent features (e.g. they are
getting their own locodes) and perhaps a new tag harbour:terminal (like 
harbour:pier) could be created for
handling this data.  Container terminals are physical features and won't 
arbitrarily change, so they aren't
metadata like LOCODEs.
If anyone has any feedback, I'd appreciate it.  I don't plan on doing 
anything until I fully understand the
details of all this, so I can write it all up, etc.
doug

[Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM writes:

Hi everyone,
This is a duplicate of a email I sent to the Tagging list:
The company I work for deals with shipping ports, UN LOCODEs, and 
shipping schedules - I had hoped to use OSM
to correlate geographical type info and LOCODEs.  The problem has 
become messier than I ever thought, and
unfortunately OSM does not have much in the way of LOCODE related data.
At this point, we have a well maintained list of LOCODEs and other such 
data that I keep track with the UN
list as it is updated.  So I thought it'd be useful to put all that 
into OSM and clean up the handful of
LOCODE tags that I have seen in OSM.  This list also includes IATA data 
and some other port type info -
everything has been gleaned from public data sources like the UN, so 
I'm sure there are no license related
issues.  I'm also confident of the accuracy since I'm the one 
responsible for maintaining the data.
I will write up a feature proposal on the wiki to outline the details, 
but first I wanted to see if there were
any comments or advice people might have.  I do plan to automate the 
updates - none of this is map data per
se, but just tags, so I assume there won't be any real complications. 
So I will read all about the guidelines
around automation.
The questions I had are:
1) the UN provides geographical coordinates of these LOCODEs, typically 
the city center.  Is there any
standard that OSM adheres to regarding the location of cities?  Anyone 
have any pointers to info I should read?
2) alternative place names - the UN provides some data and we have data 
from other sources.  The data is good,
but is there any consensus on this topic about how OSM ought to operate?
3) locations/cities not in OSM at all - adding these in is a separate 
task entirely so I will leave that till
I understand OSM better.  But if someone could point me in the right 
dir

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

[Brad Neuhauser]

Doug,

Since you're pretty knowledgable about this topic, it'd probably also be
good if you could flesh out the harbor:LOCODE page on the wiki (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:harbour:LOCODE).  It's part of this
big harbour proposal: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Harbour

Cheers, Brad

PS--one side question: shouldn't LOCODE be locode (that is, lowercase)?
that's how iata and icao are handled for aerodromes...

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM,  wrote:

> Followup to my post:
> I am here at the London OSM Hack Weekend and spoke to someone who
> explained to me the larger issues and questions about importing / updating
> metadata like LOCODEs that can't be surveyed - i.e. data where managing the
> process of keeping it current may be troublesome.
> I agree with everything he explained and so now I don't think updating the
> LOCODEs that are present, etc would be the best idea.  Letting the existing
> tags die off sounds like the best idea.
> But locodes are assigned to harbours and they are surveyable, can be
> verified by the public, all that sort of thing.  So the UN list could be
> used to update or verify that cities have appropriate harbour tags
> associated with them.  IIRC, Long Beach (or LA) was one test case I looked
> at and it didn't have a tag that i'd expected.
> So now my idea is to check the harbour tags against the UN data (this
> could also be done for rail stations) and then determine how much data is
> missing and what ought to be improved.
> A related idea is that port terminals (for commercial shipping) are
> becoming prominent features (e.g. they are getting their own locodes) and
> perhaps a new tag harbour:terminal (like harbour:pier) could be created for
> handling this data.  Container terminals are physical features and won't
> arbitrarily change, so they aren't metadata like LOCODEs.
> If anyone has any feedback, I'd appreciate it.  I don't plan on doing
> anything until I fully understand the details of all this, so I can write
> it all up, etc.
> doug
>
> [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM writes:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>> This is a duplicate of a email I sent to the Tagging list:
>> The company I work for deals with shipping ports, UN LOCODEs, and
>> shipping schedules - I had hoped to use OSM to correlate geographical type
>> info and LOCODEs.  The problem has become messier than I ever thought, and
>> unfortunately OSM does not have much in the way of LOCODE related data.
>> At this point, we have a well maintained list of LOCODEs and other such
>> data that I keep track with the UN list as it is updated.  So I thought
>> it'd be useful to put all that into OSM and clean up the handful of LOCODE
>> tags that I have seen in OSM.  This list also includes IATA data and some
>> other port type info - everything has been gleaned from public data sources
>> like the UN, so I'm sure there are no license related issues.  I'm also
>> confident of the accuracy since I'm the one responsible for maintaining the
>> data.
>> I will write up a feature proposal on the wiki to outline the details,
>> but first I wanted to see if there were any comments or advice people might
>> have.  I do plan to automate the updates - none of this is map data per se,
>> but just tags, so I assume there won't be any real complications. So I will
>> read all about the guidelines around automation.
>> The questions I had are:
>> 1) the UN provides geographical coordinates of these LOCODEs, typically
>> the city center.  Is there any standard that OSM adheres to regarding the
>> location of cities?  Anyone have any pointers to info I should read?
>> 2) alternative place names - the UN provides some data and we have data
>> from other sources.  The data is good, but is there any consensus on this
>> topic about how OSM ought to operate?
>> 3) locations/cities not in OSM at all - adding these in is a separate
>> task entirely so I will leave that till I understand OSM better.  But if
>> someone could point me in the right direction, that'd be great.
>> Thanks
>> doug
>> __**_
>> Imports mailing list
>> impo...@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/imports
>>
>
> __**_
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

[doug . fraser]

Followup to my post: 

I am here at the London OSM Hack Weekend and spoke to someone who explained 
to me the larger issues and questions about importing / updating metadata 
like LOCODEs that can't be surveyed - i.e. data where managing the process 
of keeping it current may be troublesome. 

I agree with everything he explained and so now I don't think updating the 
LOCODEs that are present, etc would be the best idea.  Letting the existing 
tags die off sounds like the best idea. 

But locodes are assigned to harbours and they are surveyable, can be 
verified by the public, all that sort of thing.  So the UN list could be 
used to update or verify that cities have appropriate harbour tags 
associated with them.  IIRC, Long Beach (or LA) was one test case I looked 
at and it didn't have a tag that i'd expected. 

So now my idea is to check the harbour tags against the UN data (this could 
also be done for rail stations) and then determine how much data is missing 
and what ought to be improved. 

A related idea is that port terminals (for commercial shipping) are 
becoming prominent features (e.g. they are getting their own locodes) and 
perhaps a new tag harbour:terminal (like harbour:pier) could be created for 
handling this data.  Container terminals are physical features and won't 
arbitrarily change, so they aren't metadata like LOCODEs. 

If anyone has any feedback, I'd appreciate it.  I don't plan on doing 
anything until I fully understand the details of all this, so I can write 
it all up, etc. 

doug 



[Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM writes: 

Hi everyone,  

This is a duplicate of a email I sent to the Tagging list:  

The company I work for deals with shipping ports, UN LOCODEs, and shipping 
schedules - I had hoped to use OSM to correlate geographical type info and 
LOCODEs.  The problem has become messier than I ever thought, and 
unfortunately OSM does not have much in the way of LOCODE related data.  

At this point, we have a well maintained list of LOCODEs and other such 
data that I keep track with the UN list as it is updated.  So I thought 
it'd be useful to put all that into OSM and clean up the handful of LOCODE 
tags that I have seen in OSM.  This list also includes IATA data and some 
other port type info - everything has been gleaned from public data 
sources like the UN, so I'm sure there are no license related issues.  I'm 
also confident of the accuracy since I'm the one responsible for 
maintaining the data.  

I will write up a feature proposal on the wiki to outline the details, but 
first I wanted to see if there were any comments or advice people might 
have.  I do plan to automate the updates - none of this is map data per 
se, but just tags, so I assume there won't be any real complications. So I 
will read all about the guidelines around automation.  

The questions I had are:  

1) the UN provides geographical coordinates of these LOCODEs, typically 
the city center.  Is there any standard that OSM adheres to regarding the 
location of cities?  Anyone have any pointers to info I should read?  

2) alternative place names - the UN provides some data and we have data 
from other sources.  The data is good, but is there any consensus on this 
topic about how OSM ought to operate?  

3) locations/cities not in OSM at all - adding these in is a separate task 
entirely so I will leave that till I understand OSM better.  But if 
someone could point me in the right direction, that'd be great.  


Thanks
doug 


___
Imports mailing list
impo...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports


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