Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

[Dave F]

The expression should be 'Tagging /incorrectly/ for the renderer'

All tags are to the benefit of the renderer; otherwise the map would be 
just black dots & lines.


DaveF

On 17/10/2017 00:26, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

(Yes I can hear the 'tagging for the render' cry from here already. However
this looks to be usefull information that mappers want to tag.
So give them a way of doing it and let the mappers and renders chose to use
it or not.)

This is a case where the 'tagging for the renderer' cry is misplaced.
It's impossible to base a rendering decision on something that isn't
represented by any tag.

'Tagging for the renderer' is telling a lie
to make something look good, not entering a fact into the
database so that some rendering can make use of it.

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



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


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 17 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> I concede that 'relative road importance' strains that definition.
> But I fail to see where any conceivable renderer would be able to get
> the information if we don't tag it. [...]

The problem you are probably referring to here is that OSM-Carto (and 
other styles) render highway=motorway and highway=trunk from z5 but do 
not render highway=primary until z8 which makes the map look ugly in 
between with road segments ending in the middle of nowhere because the 
classification as highway=motorway/trunk is usually not a measure of 
structural importance but based on local physical characteristics and 
official road classifications.

Concluding from this that you need an additional tag for roads 
indicating a subjective measure of importance to be able to produce a 
good looking road map is wrong though.  This is something you can solve 
pretty well through analysis of the connectivity in the road network.  
And doing so instead of having a static importance tag in the database 
would allow you to adjust the method of analysis and thereby the 
results to the specific application - like 'i want a map showing only 
the frequently used road connections' vs. 'i want a map that also shows 
rarely used connections to the remote parts of the country' where there 
is much less traffic overall'.

Even if you are fine in principle with having tags that are not 
verifiable you should be aware that having an importance tag would 
still imply there is only one correct way to measure importance and all 
maps should base decisions on this measure.  In other words: Tagging a 
subjective importance tag would mean you try to tell others what they 
should consider important.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

[Kevin Kenny]

On Oct 17, 2017 4:53 AM, "Christoph Hormann"  wrote:

On Tuesday 17 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> It's impossible to base a rendering decision on something that isn't
> represented by any tag.

That is not true, you can produce a lot of information through analysis
of the data and by connecting it to data outside of OSM (which is
usually outside of OSM because it is outside the scope of OSM).


All good points. I'm afraid I get a bit prickly because I have several
times been told that entering field-observable attributes of actual
geographic features is 'tagging for the renderer'  - I think simply because
whoever was spouting off was not interested in those features.

In any case, when I said 'something', I meant 'some thing' - an actual
observable object.

I concede that 'relative road importance' strains that definition. But I
fail to see where any conceivable renderer would be able to get the
information if we don't tag it. 'Relative importance' is not needed for
symbology - that's determined by physical attributes (carriageways,  lanes,
shoulder width). It is, however, what would guide a rendering decision
about the appropriate zoom level at which to display a way. Some ways that
are pretty awful, physically, nevertheless should be shown on relatively
small scale maps because they're the only road connections among
significant communities.

For what it's worth, except for 'motorway' and the problematic 'trunk', the
Wiki definitions all are based on relative importance, not physical
attributes. Arguably they're wrong, but a lot of data have been entered
following them. (And a lot of bad data have been imported from TIGER or
foisted upon us by NE2. Don't get me started.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Yes I can hear the 'tagging for the render' cry from here already. However
> this looks to be usefull information that mappers want to tag.
> So give them a way of doing it and let the mappers and renders chose to use
> it or not.)

This is a case where the 'tagging for the renderer' cry is misplaced.
It's impossible to base a rendering decision on something that isn't
represented by any tag.

'Tagging for the renderer' is telling a lie
to make something look good, not entering a fact into the
database so that some rendering can make use of it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

[Warin]

My present though is that this is trying to convey at what zoom levels 
these features should appear.
These 'importance' tags are starting to appear for all different kinds 
of things - aerodromes being one.


So why not introduce a property tag (like width, height, capacity, 
pressure) such as 'prominence' that can be use for any feature?


And, yes, 'prominence' is subjective. If the scale has few values then 
that will reduce edge cases and there will be few arguments over which 
side a feature resides.


(Yes I can hear the 'tagging for the render' cry from here already. 
However this looks to be usefull information that mappers want to tag.
So give them a way of doing it and let the mappers and renders chose to 
use it or not.)





 On 17-Oct-17 01:46 AM, José G Moya Y. wrote:
What I try to say is that the original proposal tagged rivers 
according to their relative importance in a country.


What's the criterium to know if a river is "major"  inside a country? 
Is it its occurrence in the school curriculum?


Iregua, which is a very small river (5 m width on its end) was in the 
"Spanish river list" I had to learn in the school. I learned about 
Garonne in highschool, when we reached the "European rivers" standard. 
But I only knew it crossed Spain when, at the age of 30, I visited a 
remote village and found a river named "Garona" that flew to France. 
(Here in Spain, education is very chauvinistic: I passed all my degree 
in literature without hearing a word about Shakespeare, Molière or 
Goethe. Latin-american authors, despite of writing our same language, 
are being removed from the curriculum).


El 16/10/2017 16:06, "Christoph Hormann" > escribió:


On Monday 16 October 2017, José G Moya Y. wrote:
> Ilya,
> As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking
> about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same
country,
> Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about
> absolute size (compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are
> small rivers. On the same hand, Garonne starts as a "minor" river in
> Spain and ends as a "major" river of France and Europe.

For better understanding: What the proposal tries to specify is an
importance rating for rivers based on their name, i.e. the Garonne
would by definition have the same rating everywhere it is named
Garonne.  If the upper part of a river is named differently than the
lower part it would be a different river - hence potentially a
different importance rating (like Nile - Blue Nile/White Nile or
Rhein - Vorderrhein/Hinterrhein).

This has very little to do with the size of a river as a local
property
(like the width or the discharge) which a mapper would normally use as
a basis for tagging the size of a river.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
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 - Voting - Rivers Classification

[José G Moya Y .]

What I try to say is that the original proposal tagged rivers according to
their relative importance in a country.

What's the criterium to know if a river is  "major"  inside a country? Is
it its occurrence in the school curriculum?

Iregua, which is a very small river (5 m width on its end) was in the
"Spanish river list" I had to learn in the school. I learned about Garonne
in highschool, when we reached the "European rivers" standard. But I only
knew it crossed Spain when, at the age of 30, I visited a remote village
and found a river named "Garona" that flew to France. (Here in Spain,
education is very chauvinistic: I passed all my degree in literature
without hearing a word about Shakespeare, Molière or Goethe. Latin-american
authors, despite of writing our same language, are being removed from the
curriculum).

El 16/10/2017 16:06, "Christoph Hormann"  escribió:

> On Monday 16 October 2017, José G Moya Y. wrote:
> > Ilya,
> > As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking
> > about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country,
> > Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about
> > absolute size (compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are
> > small rivers. On the same hand, Garonne starts as a "minor" river in
> > Spain and ends as a "major" river of France and Europe.
>
> For better understanding: What the proposal tries to specify is an
> importance rating for rivers based on their name, i.e. the Garonne
> would by definition have the same rating everywhere it is named
> Garonne.  If the upper part of a river is named differently than the
> lower part it would be a different river - hence potentially a
> different importance rating (like Nile - Blue Nile/White Nile or
> Rhein - Vorderrhein/Hinterrhein).
>
> This has very little to do with the size of a river as a local property
> (like the width or the discharge) which a mapper would normally use as
> a basis for tagging the size of a river.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> 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 - Rivers Classification

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 16 October 2017, José G Moya Y. wrote:
> Ilya,
> As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking
> about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country,
> Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about
> absolute size (compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are
> small rivers. On the same hand, Garonne starts as a "minor" river in
> Spain and ends as a "major" river of France and Europe.

For better understanding: What the proposal tries to specify is an 
importance rating for rivers based on their name, i.e. the Garonne 
would by definition have the same rating everywhere it is named 
Garonne.  If the upper part of a river is named differently than the 
lower part it would be a different river - hence potentially a 
different importance rating (like Nile - Blue Nile/White Nile or 
Rhein - Vorderrhein/Hinterrhein).

This has very little to do with the size of a river as a local property 
(like the width or the discharge) which a mapper would normally use as 
a basis for tagging the size of a river.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

[José G Moya Y .]

Ilya,
As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking about
relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country, Ebro and
Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about absolute size
(compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are small rivers.
On the same hand, Garonne starts as a "minor" river in Spain and ends as a
"major" river of France and Europe.


El 16/10/2017 12:22, "Ilya Zverev"  escribió:

Hi everyone,

Two months ago I suggested a way for tagging river size, from small to
major. It is a very simple proposal, offering just three tags —
river=small, =big and =major — and some numeric thresholds for these. Since
it hadn't attracted many comments, let's do a vote on that. I'm pretty sure
it would greatly help in making our maps look better, if we agree on using
these tags.

Please re-read the proposal and leave your vote in the "Voting" section.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rivers_Classification

Thanks,
Ilya
___
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

[Ilya Zverev]

Hi everyone,

Two months ago I suggested a way for tagging river size, from small to major. 
It is a very simple proposal, offering just three tags — river=small, =big and 
=major — and some numeric thresholds for these. Since it hadn't attracted many 
comments, let's do a vote on that. I'm pretty sure it would greatly help in 
making our maps look better, if we agree on using these tags.

Please re-read the proposal and leave your vote in the "Voting" section.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rivers_Classification

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