Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Volker Schmidt]

I was asked what I meant with


   -  (this tag is purpose-free)

My sloppy way of saying the tag is used to describe a shape (nearly)
independently of its purpose.

"embankment" in OSM is used in this multi -purpose way whereas "dyke" is
only used for a narrow range of objects that are related to water.

I acknowledge the expression is not very precise.

Volker

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019, 22:16 Joseph Eisenberg, 
wrote:

> I agree that there is a need to define the correct way to tag the
> center-line of a two-sided embankment or earthworks.
>
> This was mentioned previously in the discussion starting here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045798.html
> and continued here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045798.html
>
> It could be called an "earthwork": "a raised area of earth made,
> especially in the past,
> for defense against enemy attack", or "embankment" or "rampart"
> instead of "berm".
>
> This is in use 200 times as barrier=earthworks
> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/barrier=earthworks)
>
> or historic=earthworks - 196 times
> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=earthworks)
>
> or perhaps barrier=earth_bank - 184 times
> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/barrier=earth_bank)
>
> There are a few uses of barrier=rampart and military=rampart.
>
> In contrast, barrier=berm has been used only 68 times, and
> man_made=berm 14 times.
>
> But there are even more uses of embankment=yes as a standalone tag
> along the center of an earthworks/berm/rampart/embankment, and there
> is also quite a number of features tagged man_made=embankment +
> embankment=both or embankment=two_sided
> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/embankment=both and
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/embankment=two_sided > 600)
>
> I don't think it would be a good idea to redefine man_made=embankment
> to be two-sided. And using embankment=yes alone is a bit of a problem
> since it is a unique key.
>
> But I'm not convinced that "barrier=berm" or "man_made=berm" is better
> than "barrier=embankment"
>
> Also, I would oppose mapping berms as areas, especially if they are
> under the "barrier=" key - these features are (almost) always linear,
> and because "man_made=embankment" can be used to make the exact
> location of the top of the embankment.
>
> On 11/28/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 20:47, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>- First of all when I see a both-sided sloped linear elevation I do
> >>not know I see a berm.because it is a rarely used term
> >>
> >> Can you see a pile of dirt? If so, it's a berm. If it's a bricks,
> blocks,
> > rocks, concrete, wooden, steel or any other type of construction, it's
> not!
> > I agree it's not very common in normal usage, but would be quite common
> in
> > any engineering context, & there are any number of OSM terms which are
> very
> > specialised!
> >
> >>
> >>- Second it is ill-defined from the shape point of view: it can
> define
> >>a step in an earth wall and it can mean an earth wall with sloped
> >> sides
> >>
> >> Yep, either one could be a berm.
> >
> >>
> >>- Fourth it can describe man-made or natural objects.
> >>
> >> I saw reference to berm also being used to describe a line of debris
> > thrown up on a beach by a storm, however, that wouldn't be a permanent
> > feature, as it would be changed by the next storm, or human use of the
> > beach, so we wouldn't map it.
> >
> > Let's go back and define what we need
> >>
> >
> > Agree with everything you say here
> >
> >
> >>
> >>-  (this tag is purpose-free)
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "purpose-free"?
> >
> > Thinking about it we may only need to add a new man_made=slope_base tag.
> >> Packaging this together with the opposite man_made=embankment in a
> >> "slope"
> >> relation, this would give us the possibility to model even complex
> >> objects.
> >> Without a relation a closed  man-made=slope_base way could be used to
> >> draw
> >> the footprint of levees/dykes. The use could be similar to
> >> water=riverbank.
> >>
> >
> > I did suggest area=slope or similar, to map the area of levee walls in
> > discussion about large flood control levees a couple of weeks ago, but it
> > didn't seem to go down very well?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree that there is a need to define the correct way to tag the
center-line of a two-sided embankment or earthworks.

This was mentioned previously in the discussion starting here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045798.html
and continued here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045798.html

It could be called an "earthwork": "a raised area of earth made,
especially in the past,
for defense against enemy attack", or "embankment" or "rampart"
instead of "berm".

This is in use 200 times as barrier=earthworks
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/barrier=earthworks)

or historic=earthworks - 196 times
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=earthworks)

or perhaps barrier=earth_bank - 184 times
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/barrier=earth_bank)

There are a few uses of barrier=rampart and military=rampart.

In contrast, barrier=berm has been used only 68 times, and
man_made=berm 14 times.

But there are even more uses of embankment=yes as a standalone tag
along the center of an earthworks/berm/rampart/embankment, and there
is also quite a number of features tagged man_made=embankment +
embankment=both or embankment=two_sided
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/embankment=both and
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/embankment=two_sided > 600)

I don't think it would be a good idea to redefine man_made=embankment
to be two-sided. And using embankment=yes alone is a bit of a problem
since it is a unique key.

But I'm not convinced that "barrier=berm" or "man_made=berm" is better
than "barrier=embankment"

Also, I would oppose mapping berms as areas, especially if they are
under the "barrier=" key - these features are (almost) always linear,
and because "man_made=embankment" can be used to make the exact
location of the top of the embankment.

On 11/28/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 20:47, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>- First of all when I see a both-sided sloped linear elevation I do
>>not know I see a berm.because it is a rarely used term
>>
>> Can you see a pile of dirt? If so, it's a berm. If it's a bricks, blocks,
> rocks, concrete, wooden, steel or any other type of construction, it's not!
> I agree it's not very common in normal usage, but would be quite common in
> any engineering context, & there are any number of OSM terms which are very
> specialised!
>
>>
>>- Second it is ill-defined from the shape point of view: it can define
>>a step in an earth wall and it can mean an earth wall with sloped
>> sides
>>
>> Yep, either one could be a berm.
>
>>
>>- Fourth it can describe man-made or natural objects.
>>
>> I saw reference to berm also being used to describe a line of debris
> thrown up on a beach by a storm, however, that wouldn't be a permanent
> feature, as it would be changed by the next storm, or human use of the
> beach, so we wouldn't map it.
>
> Let's go back and define what we need
>>
>
> Agree with everything you say here
>
>
>>
>>-  (this tag is purpose-free)
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "purpose-free"?
>
> Thinking about it we may only need to add a new man_made=slope_base tag.
>> Packaging this together with the opposite man_made=embankment in a
>> "slope"
>> relation, this would give us the possibility to model even complex
>> objects.
>> Without a relation a closed  man-made=slope_base way could be used to
>> draw
>> the footprint of levees/dykes. The use could be similar to
>> water=riverbank.
>>
>
> I did suggest area=slope or similar, to map the area of levee walls in
> discussion about large flood control levees a couple of weeks ago, but it
> didn't seem to go down very well?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 20:47, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
>
>- First of all when I see a both-sided sloped linear elevation I do
>not know I see a berm.because it is a rarely used term
>
> Can you see a pile of dirt? If so, it's a berm. If it's a bricks, blocks,
rocks, concrete, wooden, steel or any other type of construction, it's not!
I agree it's not very common in normal usage, but would be quite common in
any engineering context, & there are any number of OSM terms which are very
specialised!

>
>- Second it is ill-defined from the shape point of view: it can define
>a step in an earth wall and it can mean an earth wall with sloped sides
>
> Yep, either one could be a berm.

>
>- Fourth it can describe man-made or natural objects.
>
> I saw reference to berm also being used to describe a line of debris
thrown up on a beach by a storm, however, that wouldn't be a permanent
feature, as it would be changed by the next storm, or human use of the
beach, so we wouldn't map it.

Let's go back and define what we need
>

Agree with everything you say here


>
>-  (this tag is purpose-free)
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "purpose-free"?

Thinking about it we may only need to add a new man_made=slope_base tag.
> Packaging this together with the opposite man_made=embankment in a "slope"
> relation, this would give us the possibility to model even complex objects.
> Without a relation a closed  man-made=slope_base way could be used to draw
> the footprint of levees/dykes. The use could be similar to water=riverbank.
>

I did suggest area=slope or similar, to map the area of levee walls in
discussion about large flood control levees a couple of weeks ago, but it
didn't seem to go down very well?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[marc marc]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Jan Michel wrote:
> the purpose of the berm - e.g. berm = noise_barrier

usage=* may fit the need
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Jan Michel  wrote:

>
> - We should have a defined way to tag the purpose of the berm - e.g.
> berm = noise_barrier
>

Yes, that would be good. I'm actually just thinking that it may be better
to move it to man_made= rather than barrier=, as you may get the situation
of barrier=berm + berm=barrier?

Bit premature I know!, but names for actual "types"? Guessing along the
lines of
=fortification for something like the Western Sahara wall
=flood-control
=noise-control
=pollution-control, all of which are fairly self-explanatory.

Walls around explosive dumps, shooting ranges & so on - =protective?

- How do we separate berms and dams along rivers? Their physical
> appearance and structure is identical, only the purpose is different.
>

True. A levee is (usually) a berm, while a dam could be, but a berm doesn't
*have* to be either a levee or a dam!

- If mapped as a way, how is the width=* of the object defined? At the
> bottom? At half the height?
>

Hadn't thought about that, as that section was copied directly from the
=embankment page!

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 18:53, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> If I get this right, a berm is defined through their shape, is describing
> a physical characteristic.
>

Not quite. A berm is basically just a pile of dirt. The dirt can be bare or
covered with grass, it can be moulded into different shapes, heights or
widths  / thicknesses, left loose or compacted, depending on the purpose
it's required for.

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 20:01, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Since a berm is a type of embankment, why not render it as an embankment?
>

> Others have proposed a berm=* subtag to differentiate types of berms.
> Why not, instead,
> use a subtag for embankments?
>

Thanks! That ties in with what I was thinking ^ of it being better coming
under man_made=, rather than barrier=

man_made=embankment (sloped wall) + embankment=berm (pile of dirt) +
berm="use" - fortification / protective / noise_control etc

That'll do for this post as it's turning into a novel!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :

> Please do explain how at rendering I can change what's in the data at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.22594/-0.48389 to something more
> like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359607456 so that at anything less
> than z16 you don't just get a mess.  A rendering of the latter one (with
> "emabankment=yes" in this case) can be seen at
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=53.27001&lon=-0.77707
> .
>



higher detail requires generalization for lower zoom levels, this is
generally the case. You could create a buffer around the embankments and
check whether there are more of them within a certain range and then do
something ;)

We've had complaints about this area
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.96369/14.06799 (and surroundings)
but the actual situation on the ground is very particular:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=basteifelsen&ia=images&iax=images


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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/11/2019 13:03, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 12:45, Andy Townsend > wrote:


Tagging 2 things to represent 1 physical feature just makes it
extra-hard for anyone consuming the data.


Yet we have a very similar problem with "two things, two objects."  We 
make a tennis court
surrounded by a fence two objects for good reasons.  But it is very 
difficult to subsequently
edit those objects in some editors.  Not only may you not realize 
there are two objects, but
there is no way (in some editors) of cycling through objects having 
all ways in common.
The only way I've found is to split a node so I can move the node of 
one object away in
order to be able to select between them, then put that node back when 
I've finished.


It's a problem that shouldn't exist.  Fixable in the tool chain.

Please do explain how at rendering I can change what's in the data at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.22594/-0.48389 to something 
more like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359607456 so that at 
anything less than z16 you don't just get a mess.  A rendering of the 
latter one (with "emabankment=yes" in this case) can be seen at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=53.27001&lon=-0.77707 
.


If you say "this is fixable in the tool chain" without actually being 
able to explain how, then we'll have to assume that you actually don't 
know how, and therefore don't know that it is actually "fixable" at 
all.  That doesn't mean that it isn't, but it likely means that no-one 
yet knows how without a lot of spatial stuff in the stylesheet (which 
would be a bit of a nightmare).


And to pick up one other point:

On 28/11/2019 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I have used in past a way with only one tag: embankment=yes to map 
small earth walls with nothing on top. I admit that I have not checked 
the rendering, but this seems to me a simple solution.


yes, these is one of the most common ways that people do this sort of 
thing.  When I looked into this a while back (mostly in Ireland and the 
UK) I came up with the list at 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L3086 
.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Volker Schmidt]

I have used in past a way with only one tag: embankment=yes to map small
earth walls with nothing on top. I admit that I have not checked the
rendering, but this seems to me a simple solution.

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, 14:05 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 12:45, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> Tagging 2 things to represent 1 physical feature just makes it extra-hard
>> for anyone consuming the data.
>>
>
> Yet we have a very similar problem with "two things, two objects."  We
> make a tennis court
> surrounded by a fence two objects for good reasons.  But it is very
> difficult to subsequently
> edit those objects in some editors.  Not only may you not realize there
> are two objects, but
> there is no way (in some editors) of cycling through objects having all
> ways in common.
> The only way I've found is to split a node so I can move the node of one
> object away in
> order to be able to select between them, then put that node back when I've
> finished.
>
> It's a problem that shouldn't exist.  Fixable in the tool chain.
>
>   They'd have to say "OK, I've got a man_made=embankment here; now, before
>> I decide what to do with it, I have to see if there is another parallel one
>> facing the other way that tells me that what I've really got is a raised
>> flood bank or similar"
>>
>
> The editor I use shows such things with triangles on one side.  So fixed
> in at least one
> alternative.
>
>> We represent other linear features (e.g. roads) as lines; it makes sense
>> to do the same here.
>>
>
> But we also have roads with areas, when that makes sense.  Representing a
> wide embankment
> not a good option without a width tag and a double-sided tag and renderer
> support.  Two parallel
> embankments, as currently handled, makes it clear.  And also copes nicely
> with an irregular
> width without having to split the embankment in (possibly many) places.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Barrier=berm

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 12:45, Andy Townsend  wrote:

Tagging 2 things to represent 1 physical feature just makes it extra-hard
> for anyone consuming the data.
>

Yet we have a very similar problem with "two things, two objects."  We make
a tennis court
surrounded by a fence two objects for good reasons.  But it is very
difficult to subsequently
edit those objects in some editors.  Not only may you not realize there are
two objects, but
there is no way (in some editors) of cycling through objects having all
ways in common.
The only way I've found is to split a node so I can move the node of one
object away in
order to be able to select between them, then put that node back when I've
finished.

It's a problem that shouldn't exist.  Fixable in the tool chain.

  They'd have to say "OK, I've got a man_made=embankment here; now, before
> I decide what to do with it, I have to see if there is another parallel one
> facing the other way that tells me that what I've really got is a raised
> flood bank or similar"
>

The editor I use shows such things with triangles on one side.  So fixed in
at least one
alternative.

> We represent other linear features (e.g. roads) as lines; it makes sense
> to do the same here.
>

But we also have roads with areas, when that makes sense.  Representing a
wide embankment
not a good option without a width tag and a double-sided tag and renderer
support.  Two parallel
embankments, as currently handled, makes it clear.  And also copes nicely
with an irregular
width without having to split the embankment in (possibly many) places.

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :

> Tagging 2 things to represent 1 physical feature just makes it extra-hard
> for anyone consuming the data.  They'd have to say "OK, I've got a
> man_made=embankment here; now, before I decide what to do with it, I have
> to see if there is another parallel one facing the other way that tells me
> that what I've really got is a raised flood bank or similar"
>
> We represent other linear features (e.g. roads) as lines; it makes sense
> to do the same here.
>


there's a significant difference between roads and embankments, because
roads tend to keep the same width, while embankment often may have
different width along their way, so even if we do not want to tag them as
an area, having different geometry for the upper and lower border may make
sense.

And we also have situations where mapping roads (only) as linear ways is
not deemed appropriate, hence area:highway is proposed, e.g. in historic
city centers, for squares, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/11/2019 11:42, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 10:56, Andy Townsend > wrote:


OSM Carto, as far as I'm aware

  * Doesn't have a concept of 2-sided embankments or a rendering
for them

Does it need such a concept?  I haven't tried it when the embankment 
resembles an
arete, but for an embankment with a plateau all that is needed is two 
embankments

delineating the plateau.


Tagging 2 things to represent 1 physical feature just makes it 
extra-hard for anyone consuming the data.  They'd have to say "OK, I've 
got a man_made=embankment here; now, before I decide what to do with it, 
I have to see if there is another parallel one facing the other way that 
tells me that what I've really got is a raised flood bank or similar"


We represent other linear features (e.g. roads) as lines; it makes sense 
to do the same here.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 10:56, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> OSM Carto, as far as I'm aware
>
>- Doesn't have a concept of 2-sided embankments or a rendering for them
>
> Does it need such a concept?  I haven't tried it when the embankment
resembles an
arete, but for an embankment with a plateau all that is needed is two
embankments
delineating the plateau.  Some may want to relate them in some way, but
purely for
rendering they're two embankments spaced a little apart and sloping in
opposite
directions.  I haven't tried it, but I suspect superposing two embankments
facing in
opposite directions would handle an arete type of embankment (such as a
stop butt)
with no modifications required to the renderer.

>
>-
>- Doesn't have the concept of "on an embankment" being a modifier for
>highways / railways in a similar way to "bridge" and "tunnel"
>
>
Wouldn't necessarily need one unless the plateau of the embankment were so
close
that the embankment would blot out the railway or the railway would blot
out the embankment.

---^---^---^---^---^
=
---v---v---v---v---v

The usual answer here is "pull requests welcome"...
>
> Sometimes people might not want to do that because they know it wouldn't
> be accepted (if it makes more use of lua processing than the OSM Carto
> folks are happy with, for example).
>
Or because it is beyond the capabilities of the person who would like that
feature.

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/11/2019 09:59, Paul Allen wrote:



On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



Question of my own - is there any particular reason that a berm
couldn't just be rendered the same as a wall?


That question prompts another question.

Why render it as a wall?  Since a berm is a type of embankment, why 
not render it as an

embankment?


I've rendered "2-sided embankments" at e.g. 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=54.024306&lon=-1.02141 
as _their own thing_ for a while now.  That example is at the end of a 
firing range, 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=53.87324&lon=-1.23959 
shows some for flood defences.  In that second image to the northwest 
you can see an embankment with a path on it.


OSM Carto, as far as I'm aware

 * Doesn't have a concept of 2-sided embankments or a rendering for them
 * Doesn't have the concept of "on an embankment" being a modifier for
   highways / railways in a similar way to "bridge" and "tunnel"


Either way, if you render it the same as an existing object, and it 
serves the
same purpose as an existing object, the carto people are likely to 
veto it under their "no

synonyms" rule.


I wouldn't argue that a new tag for berm is "needed", because people 
have found ways to tag these features already (such as "embankment=yes" 
and various flood defence tags), but it could be argued that using one 
tag for these features makes things clearer.  Separately to that, even 
if you say "render X like Y" it doesn't mean that X is a synonym of Y.  
There are plenty of those in all renderings already.



Even if you persuade the carto people to render berms, it will go on 
their long to-do list and

may take a long time to appear.


The usual answer here is "pull requests welcome"...

Sometimes people might not want to do that because they know it wouldn't 
be accepted (if it makes more use of lua processing than the OSM Carto 
folks are happy with, for example).  I suspect that wouldn't make sense 
to submit a pull request to OSM Carto for bus guideway handling to match 
the way I do it because it'd depend on lua changing a bus guideway to be 
a type of railway.  That "busway as railway" handling is why


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=52.315008&lon=-0.05611

show a bridge but

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.31481/-0.05622

does not.




You also have the problem of having to inspect a lot of existing 
embankments to see
if some of them should be retagged as berms.  And the problem of 
mappers, perhaps

newbies, wondering what the difference between the two is.

Others have proposed a berm=* subtag to differentiate types of 
berms.   Why not, instead,

use a subtag for embankments?


A two-sided embankment is fundamentally different to a one-sided one.  
The renderer would need to split them out into a different feature 
anyway to render them, so it's fairly irrelevant to it how they are 
tagged (other than the extra complication in "select" statements if 
people insist on sub-tagging features that mean something else).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Volker Schmidt]

I see a number of problems with the proposal

   - First of all when I see a both-sided sloped linear elevation I do not
   know I see a berm.because it is a rarely used term
   - Second it is ill-defined from the shape point of view: it can define a
   step in an earth wall and it can mean an earth wall with sloped sides
   - Third it is also ill-defined from the purpose point fo view - see the
   Wikipedia article.
   - Fourth it can describe man-made or natural objects.


Let's go back and define what we need
I think we need a way  to describe a man-made linear structure that is
higher as the surroundings, has slopes on both sides..
We need to be able to represent in a simple form smaller items, say with a
width in the range of up to 10 meters and big ones in the tens of meters
range for width, where we need to be able to map the footprint (often
visible from satellite photos, and the edges of the top if the top is flat.
Then we need to tag the surface material,and, if known, the material from
which the structure is made.
And we want to indicate the purpose.

There are many types of objects with completely different purposes that
spring to mind

   - Sound.deflection structures
   - military defensive structures (mostly historic)
   - water-defence structures (The levee in the photo
    is
   typical. It's base is clearly visible form satellite photos and is 60m wide)
   - explosion-risk containment structures
   - water containment structures


What we have

   - embankment=yes on a way to say that it sits on top of a raised
   structure on both sides (this tag is purpose-free)
   - man_made=embankment is a directional way which indicates that marks
   the upper edge of a downwards slope (this tag is purpose-free)
   - man_made=dyke which is similar in shape to embankment=yes, but has a
   purpose as well: flood protection (also known as levee)
   - waterway=dam which can shape-wise be similar to a dyke, but for a
   different purpose.
   - land_use=basin defines a structure which often uses dams


Thinking about it we may only need to add a new man_made=slope_base tag.
Packaging this together with the opposite man_made=embankment in a "slope"
relation, this would give us the possibility to model even complex objects.
Without a relation a closed  man-made=slope_base way could be used to draw
the footprint of levees/dykes. The use could be similar to water=riverbank.

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Question of my own - is there any particular reason that a berm couldn't
> just be rendered the same as a wall?
>

That question prompts another question.

Why render it as a wall?  Since a berm is a type of embankment, why not
render it as an
embankment?  Either way, if you render it the same as an existing object,
and it serves the
same purpose as an existing object, the carto people are likely to veto it
under their "no
synonyms" rule.

Even if you persuade the carto people to render berms, it will go on their
long to-do list and
may take a long time to appear.

You also have the problem of having to inspect a lot of existing
embankments to see
if some of them should be retagged as berms.  And the problem of mappers,
perhaps
newbies, wondering what the difference between the two is.

Others have proposed a berm=* subtag to differentiate types of berms.   Why
not, instead,
use a subtag for embankments?  That will render immediately, because
man_made=embankment already renders and we'd just use the subtag to declare
what
type of embankment it is (berm, stop butt, whatever).  Throw in an
embankment:use
(or embankment:purpose or whatever) and you've pretty much covered it.  As
a subtag, it's
optional, so no pressure to revisit existing embankments and newbies can
ignore it when
adding embankments if they don't know whether it's a barrier or for noise
reduction or
whatever.

Unless there's some deep physical or philosophical difference between an
embankment and
a berm, I'd go with subtagging embankments.

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Peter Elderson]

How about

use=*  /* Answers the question: what's the use of this thing? Well, the
use=*


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 28 nov. 2019 om 09:53 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 01:23 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graemefi...@gmail.com>:
>
>> A berm, in modern usage, does indeed refer to any number of broadly
>> similar concepts, in that it is (usually) a simple pile of dirt, either
>> bare, or covered with grass.
>>
>> So how about changing the definition to:
>> " A *Berm * in modern usage, is a
>> raised barrier (usually made of compacted earth, either bare or grass
>> covered) separating two areas. It can have many applications, including as
>> a defensive fortification line, a protective barrier, a border/separation
>> barrier or in industrial or sporting settings".
>> Is that better?
>>
>>
>
> I believe we should define the tags according to their meaning. If I get
> this right, a berm is defined through their shape, is describing a physical
> characteristic. Therefor the definition should not be about the
> applications / function. For the function we should add additional tags if
> deemed useful by the mapper. So there would be a tag to say it is a berm
> (man made earthwork of certain shapes), and another one that says there is
> a fortification line, or a protection for a shooting range, or whatever.
>
>
> Jan Michel wrote:
>
>> - We should have a defined way to tag the purpose of the berm - e.g.
>> berm = noise_barrier
>>
>
>
> along the reasoning above, I would expect the key "berm" to describe a
> type of berm. I am not an expert for earthworks, but I am pretty sure there
> will be subtypes of berms describing maybe physical characteristics or
> other constructive details (e.g. how it was built, if there is
> reinforcement, etc.)
> Therefore functional characteristics like "this is there for noise
> protection" should go into another tag (would have to discuss what makes
> sense).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Marco Predicatori]

Jan Michel wrote on 11/28/19 8:56 AM:
> Hi Graeme,
> 
> On 26.11.19 03:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> Following the recent discussions of protective walls, I've created a page for
>> barrier=berm https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dberm
> 
> I think it's a good idea to have a dedicated tag for this type of walls. I 
> don't
> want to comment on the name - this is something native speakers should decide.
> But I have some comments:
> 
> - We should have a defined way to tag the purpose of the berm - e.g. berm =
> noise_barrier
> 
> - How do we separate berms and dams along rivers? Their physical appearance 
> and
> structure is identical, only the purpose is different.
> 
> - If mapped as a way, how is the width=* of the object defined? At the bottom?
> At half the height?

I'm not sure a mapper should be stopped by such details. Most of the times he
wouldn't be able to measure any width, or reliably determine the reasons for
which a berm was built. Does it hold water? Sure, if a nearby river overflows.
Does it stop sound? Always.

See a berm? Map it as such. You don't need to investigate whether inside there's
a shooting range or a nudist camp. Someone else might know, and tag the area. 
:-)

Bye, Marco

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 01:23 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:

> A berm, in modern usage, does indeed refer to any number of broadly
> similar concepts, in that it is (usually) a simple pile of dirt, either
> bare, or covered with grass.
>
> So how about changing the definition to:
> " A *Berm * in modern usage, is a
> raised barrier (usually made of compacted earth, either bare or grass
> covered) separating two areas. It can have many applications, including as
> a defensive fortification line, a protective barrier, a border/separation
> barrier or in industrial or sporting settings".
> Is that better?
>
>

I believe we should define the tags according to their meaning. If I get
this right, a berm is defined through their shape, is describing a physical
characteristic. Therefor the definition should not be about the
applications / function. For the function we should add additional tags if
deemed useful by the mapper. So there would be a tag to say it is a berm
(man made earthwork of certain shapes), and another one that says there is
a fortification line, or a protection for a shooting range, or whatever.


Jan Michel wrote:

> - We should have a defined way to tag the purpose of the berm - e.g.
> berm = noise_barrier
>


along the reasoning above, I would expect the key "berm" to describe a type
of berm. I am not an expert for earthworks, but I am pretty sure there will
be subtypes of berms describing maybe physical characteristics or other
constructive details (e.g. how it was built, if there is reinforcement,
etc.)
Therefore functional characteristics like "this is there for noise
protection" should go into another tag (would have to discuss what makes
sense).

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Jan Michel]

Hi Graeme,

On 26.11.19 03:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Following the recent discussions of protective walls, I've created a 
page for barrier=berm https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dberm


I think it's a good idea to have a dedicated tag for this type of walls. 
I don't want to comment on the name - this is something native speakers 
should decide. But I have some comments:


- We should have a defined way to tag the purpose of the berm - e.g. 
berm = noise_barrier


- How do we separate berms and dams along rivers? Their physical 
appearance and structure is identical, only the purpose is different.


- If mapped as a way, how is the width=* of the object defined? At the 
bottom? At half the height?



Jan


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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks everybody for your comments!

Without trying to quote each one of you individually ...

OK, if it should be a proposal, how to change it? Just alter the name of
the page to "Proposed Features/Tag:barrier=berm", or does the page have to
be moved?

A berm, in modern usage, does indeed refer to any number of broadly similar
concepts, in that it is (usually) a simple pile of dirt, either bare, or
covered with grass.

So how about changing the definition to:
" A *Berm * in modern usage, is a
raised barrier (usually made of compacted earth, either bare or grass
covered) separating two areas. It can have many applications, including as
a defensive fortification line, a protective barrier, a border/separation
barrier or in industrial or sporting settings".
Is that better?

I did look at a random sample of the existing 61 berms, & this would cover
all that I saw - protective walls around apparent ammunition stores;
presumed anti-pollution walls around industrial facilities; walls along
roads & close to (apparently dry) water features & so on.

While researching, I did also notice reference to berms using in BMX &
Motocross tracks but thought they would be too physically small to map? Do
we usually map chicanes & similar on normal race-tracks?

In regard to shooting ranges - yes the area behind the target can be
referred to either as a butt, stop-butt or a back-stop, but it is (usually)
a pile of dirt. Firing "mounds" can be a slightly raised area to fire from,
or it can be a traditional name for just that part of the range area.

I'd agree that earthworks could do with some work, but, yep, that's another
can of worms! (When do we mention gabions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabion & their modern equivalent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion? :-))

In regard to large levees, John has been talking about these recently at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/049185.html

Question of my own - is there any particular reason that a berm couldn't
just be rendered the same as a wall?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Volker Schmidt]

For "my" shooting range I think a way with a single tag
embankment=yes
is sufficient.

For a large levee it is not.
Let's concentrate on the big items where size matters.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:33, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 13:11, Tony OSM  wrote:
>
> A earthwork raised element which has an armoured side seems to be a
>> revetment - I can see no use of this in OSM., but it is in many books about
>> castles and fortifications.
>>
>
> When it comes to castles, a revetment is essentially a retaining wall that
> is part of the
> fortification and an ordinary fortification wall is often referred to as a
> curtain wall.  An earthen
> bank (with no wall) that is part of a fortification (such as a motte and
> bailey) is an embankment.
> Purists will object to my simplifications, I expect.
>
>> In my view earthworks in general could do with analysis to agree terms
>> and usage, they do occur in many places and are large mappable features.
>>
> Cans of worms are never large enough. :)
>
> --
> Paul
> ___
> 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] Barrier=berm

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 13:11, Tony OSM  wrote:

A earthwork raised element which has an armoured side seems to be a
> revetment - I can see no use of this in OSM., but it is in many books about
> castles and fortifications.
>

When it comes to castles, a revetment is essentially a retaining wall that
is part of the
fortification and an ordinary fortification wall is often referred to as a
curtain wall.  An earthen
bank (with no wall) that is part of a fortification (such as a motte and
bailey) is an embankment.
Purists will object to my simplifications, I expect.

> In my view earthworks in general could do with analysis to agree terms and
> usage, they do occur in many places and are large mappable features.
>
Cans of worms are never large enough. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 08:30, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

I am not at all happy with "berm". It is unfortunately a term used for a
> number of different things all related to earthworks.
>

It appears that the technical term for the part of the range which the shot
impacts is known
as the butts or a backstop.  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_range#Butts_/_backstop
Butts/backstop applies to earthen mounds on outdoor ranges and metal plates
on indoor
ranges.  Elsewhere on the page it mentions the term "mound" several times
to refer to the
earthen butts/backstop on an outdoor range, but "mound" may be a simple
descriptive term rather
than a technical one.  It is also the case that, as far as OSM is
concerned, "mound" may be
as confusing (or even more confusing) as berm.

As far as British Englsh goes, one shooting club site I've found refers to
"stop butts" and
"butt stops" which makes sense given
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butt#Etymology_1

Given https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/berm and the way the proposal is
written, "berm" may be
as good as it gets.  We could always subtag it...

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Tony OSM]

How do we know that 61 precious uses of the word berm all meant the 
same? without verifying each one .


The english wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berm allows

 * the level step element of raised barrier
 * raised element without a level element

An earthwork raised element with a way on top seems to be an embankment.

A earthwork raised element which has an armoured side seems to be a 
revetment - I can see no use of this in OSM., but it is in many books 
about castles and fortifications.


In my view earthworks in general could do with analysis to agree terms 
and usage, they do occur in many places and are large mappable features.


Tony

TonyS999

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 26. Nov. 2019 um 09:30 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Graeme, please mark the page as proposal.
>
> I am not at all happy with "berm". It is unfortunately a term used for a
> number of different things all related to earthworks.
> What is missing in OSM are clean-cut mapping possibilities for (slopped)
> earth walls  and for (one-sided) slopes.
> Berm is neither of the two. In addition the main and original meaning of
> berm is a step in the slope of an earth wall. See the first diagram in the 
> German
> Wikipedia page for Berme. 
> This photo
>  shows
> one of the objects that I would like to map properly: A river levee with
> two berms.
>


I agree the term seems to be mainly describing a horizontal, linear narrow
area within an embankment (German usage of the term "Berme", which
originates from French). This is also what I found in the oxford online
dictionaries, and what wikipedia en has as first meaning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berm

Generally, proposals should be set up in the proposal namespace.

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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Warin]

Berms are also used in motocross.. and MTBs

Scroll halfway down this page 
https://www.dirtbikes101.com/arts/dirt-bike-riding-tips-corners.html


Looks like berm is a term used/misused for some different things.. may 
be best to use something else?




On 26/11/19 19:28, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Graeme, please mark the page as proposal.

I am not at all happy with "berm". It is unfortunately a term used for 
a number of different things all related to earthworks.
What is missing in OSM are clean-cut mapping possibilities for 
(slopped) earth walls  and for (one-sided) slopes.
Berm is neither of the two. In addition the main and original meaning 
of berm is a step in the slope of an earth wall. See the first diagram 
in the German Wikipedia page for Berme. 

This photo 
 
shows one of the objects that I would like to map properly: A river 
levee with two berms.






On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 03:59, Dave Swarthout > wrote:


The proposal looks good to me. Thanks for your effort.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:51 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Following the recent discussions of protective walls, I've
created a page for barrier=berm
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dberm

As it is already in use 61 times, I didn't think we had to go
through the full RFC / voting procedure, but please correct me
if I'm wrong?

As always, comments & discussion welcomed! :-)

Thanks

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



-- 
Dave Swarthout

Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand



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

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Volker Schmidt]

Graeme, please mark the page as proposal.

I am not at all happy with "berm". It is unfortunately a term used for a
number of different things all related to earthworks.
What is missing in OSM are clean-cut mapping possibilities for (slopped)
earth walls  and for (one-sided) slopes.
Berm is neither of the two. In addition the main and original meaning of
berm is a step in the slope of an earth wall. See the first diagram in
the German
Wikipedia page for Berme. 
This photo
 shows
one of the objects that I would like to map properly: A river levee with
two berms.





On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 03:59, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> The proposal looks good to me. Thanks for your effort.
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:51 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> Following the recent discussions of protective walls, I've created a page
>> for barrier=berm  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dberm
>>
>> As it is already in use 61 times, I didn't think we had to go through the
>> full RFC / voting procedure, but please correct me if I'm wrong?
>>
>> As always, comments & discussion welcomed! :-)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> 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] Barrier=berm

[Dave Swarthout]

The proposal looks good to me. Thanks for your effort.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:51 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Following the recent discussions of protective walls, I've created a page
> for barrier=berm  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dberm
>
> As it is already in use 61 times, I didn't think we had to go through the
> full RFC / voting procedure, but please correct me if I'm wrong?
>
> As always, comments & discussion welcomed! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Barrier=berm

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Following the recent discussions of protective walls, I've created a page
for barrier=berm  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dberm

As it is already in use 61 times, I didn't think we had to go through the
full RFC / voting procedure, but please correct me if I'm wrong?

As always, comments & discussion welcomed! :-)

Thanks

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