Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/9/30 Frederik Ramm :
> I am very much against using place=... for areas; if one wants to describe
> areas then one should use a boundary tag.


place was from the beginning defined for nodes as well as for areas.
Currently we (mapnik-OSM) are using external data (natural earth) for
the purpose these place areas could serve ( shapefile builtup_area ),
why shouldn't we try to get our own data for these? Btw.: one forth of
all place=city already are mapped as an area according to taginfo.


> If the proposed tags are used for nodes, then they don't require the above
> well-definedness and no hierarchy either.


If neighbourhoods were introduced then there would already be a
hierarchy (suburbs are bigger/higher then neighbourhoods). What's the
problem with introducing an intermediate level? How would a renderer
decide the importance of a certain node in respect to another if there
were hundreds of them (like in the Rome example)? If you don't need
the hierarchy, simply don't use it (or don't use 3 levels but only 2).
If you can't tell the limit of a neighbourhood (which btw. could
overlap, this won't be a problem) simply map it as a node. These
proposals don't force anyone to map places as areas.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09/27/2011 07:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

There's a problem here: you're assuming that neighborhoods (and
so-called quarters) are well-defined.


I am very much against using place=... for areas; if one wants to 
describe areas then one should use a boundary tag.


If the proposed tags are used for nodes, then they don't require the 
above well-definedness and no hierarchy either.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/9/28 Brad Neuhauser :
> Martin, I'm not sure the NYC example is helping.  You mentioned this was
> discussed on the German mailing list--can you give some other examples from
> Germany (or whereever) about how this might be used?  Thanks, Brad


You might have a look at Rome (we are currently discussing about how
to deal with the various toponyms on the local ML, so consider this
preliminary):

On the administrative level there is the comune di Roma
(admin_level=8) municipalities (admin_level=10) and zone urbanistiche
(urban zones, admin_level=11) [1]

In settlement geography (toponyms) there is
* suburbs (OSM definition): quartieri, suburbi and zone dell'Agro [2]
maybe also some of the "other toponyms" (see [3])
* quarters: Rioni, other toponyms used by the locals (the bigger
places), often called after an important monument or a geographical
feature [3]
* neighbourhoods: other toponyms (smaller places) like Lottizzazioni,
Piani di Zona, other Toponyms as listed in [4]

__

Sorry that I linked the Italian pages, but the English ones weren't satisfying.

Probably not all settlements will have all levels. According to the
size you will be able to map parts of settlements with these proposed
new values and give the map recipient an idea about the level of the
part in respect to the other entities around. Tagging a part of a
village as suburb would be misleading because this part will not have
the same importance or size like the part of a big city, so you could
decide to tag it place=neighbourhood (without having any "suburb" or
"quarter" in the village). On the other hand, like you can see in Rome
or in NYC, having just 2 levels for the parts is not sufficient for
big cities.

Cheers,
Martin


___
[1]
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipi_di_Roma
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Zone_Urbanistiche_di_Roma
(probably, awaiting confermation that these are administrative and
their boundaries correspond to the municipalities without
intersection)

[2]
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartieri_di_Roma
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbi_di_Roma
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_di_Roma (maybe)

[3]
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rioni_di_Roma
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suddivisioni_di_Roma#Altri_Toponimi

[4]
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suddivisioni_di_Roma#Altri_Toponimi

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Brad Neuhauser]

Martin, I'm not sure the NYC example is helping.  You mentioned this was
discussed on the German mailing list--can you give some other examples from
Germany (or whereever) about how this might be used?  Thanks, Brad

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2011/9/28 Nathan Edgars II :
> > On 9/27/2011 8:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > How? What's wrong with all of the sub-Manhattan entities being
> > place=neighborhood?
>
>
> not sure if there is something wrong there, so you could (as local
> mapper) decide to do it like this. In other parts of the world mappers
> have expressed the desire to have this hierarchy (they identified 3
> levels necessary for their area), that's the reason for the quarter
> proposal.
>
>
> > Maybe "quarter" would be the best tag for the boroughs,
> > but it seems like a horrible term for something that's not literally a
> > quarter of the city.
>
>
>
> A borough is an administrative entity and therefore already
> represented with admin_level and boundary.
>
> Generally you shouldn't interpretate the tags literally but see them
> as a code, where the actual meaning is by (our=OSM) definition
> (generally in the wiki). It does not make sense to have one tag for
> quarters and one for sestieres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestiere .
>
> An osm-suburb is not a (suburb=in suburbia).
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/9/28 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 9/27/2011 8:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> How? What's wrong with all of the sub-Manhattan entities being
> place=neighborhood?


not sure if there is something wrong there, so you could (as local
mapper) decide to do it like this. In other parts of the world mappers
have expressed the desire to have this hierarchy (they identified 3
levels necessary for their area), that's the reason for the quarter
proposal.


> Maybe "quarter" would be the best tag for the boroughs,
> but it seems like a horrible term for something that's not literally a
> quarter of the city.


A borough is an administrative entity and therefore already
represented with admin_level and boundary.

Generally you shouldn't interpretate the tags literally but see them
as a code, where the actual meaning is by (our=OSM) definition
(generally in the wiki). It does not make sense to have one tag for
quarters and one for sestieres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestiere .

An osm-suburb is not a (suburb=in suburbia).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 9/27/2011 8:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2011/9/28 Nathan Edgars II:

There's no consistent "same level" here. If you split Manhattan into three
strips, Upper Manhattan is on the same level as Midtown. But if you go into
slightly finer divisions, Harlem and Midtown are on the same level.


OK, looking at New York it is clear that 3 levels are not enough.
What's clear is that there's no such thing as a level when neighborhoods 
are involved.



I am not sure how to handle NYC, maybe the proposed
scheme has to be amended, but doesn't that prove that the current
place scheme is unsufficient by all means?
How? What's wrong with all of the sub-Manhattan entities being 
place=neighborhood? Maybe "quarter" would be the best tag for the 
boroughs, but it seems like a horrible term for something that's not 
literally a quarter of the city.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/9/28 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 9/27/2011 7:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> There's no consistent "same level" here. If you split Manhattan into three
> strips, Upper Manhattan is on the same level as Midtown. But if you go into
> slightly finer divisions, Harlem and Midtown are on the same level.


OK, looking at New York it is clear that 3 levels are not enough.
Harlem itself has a population of around 200,000 people, could be
divided into West Harlem, Spanish Harlem and Central Harlem, where the
latter for example contains areas like Mount Morris, Astor Row, etc.
(which seem to be what the neighbourhood proposal aims at). At this
granularity there is a hierarchy
Mount Morris -> Central Harlem -> Harlem -> Midtown Manhattan ->
Manhattan Island
could be (how the current proposals are intended):
Neighbourhood -> Quarter -> (suburb: Harlem = Midtown Manhattan)

This would shift the whole hierarchy by one level (compared to my
previous post). I am not sure how to handle NYC, maybe the proposed
scheme has to be amended, but doesn't that prove that the current
place scheme is unsufficient by all means?

Btw.: the borough and county objects are already mapped with
admin_level and administrative boundaries, they won't need a place-tag
IMO.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 9/27/2011 7:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

They can overlap and maybe also be contained one within another, but
if there is some entity which contains several neighbourhoods it could
get another tag even if this part would in some language/context be
called "neighbourhood" as well. It's not really about the words, it
could be level1, level2 and level3 as well. Upper Manhattan is not on
the same level as is Harlem, is it?


There's no consistent "same level" here. If you split Manhattan into 
three strips, Upper Manhattan is on the same level as Midtown. But if 
you go into slightly finer divisions, Harlem and Midtown are on the same 
level.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/9/27 Brad Neuhauser :
> Based on earlier discussions of place=suburb [1], I think it's good to start
> from an understanding that "suburb" as used in OSM does not match the common
> understanding of suburb in the US. [2]


+1, yes, place=suburb is not a "suburb". I also tried to write this in
the starting thread.


> That said, I don't yet see the need for quarter.  Both suburb and
> neighborhood are vaguely defined as it is, so I'm not sure how another
> vaguely defined term thrown into the mix helps.  Or, to ask a related
> question, why can't neighborhoods overlap and/or be contained within each
> other?


They can overlap and maybe also be contained one within another, but
if there is some entity which contains several neighbourhoods it could
get another tag even if this part would in some language/context be
called "neighbourhood" as well. It's not really about the words, it
could be level1, level2 and level3 as well. Upper Manhattan is not on
the same level as is Harlem, is it?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Brad Neuhauser]

Based on earlier discussions of place=suburb [1], I think it's good to start
from an understanding that "suburb" as used in OSM does not match the common
understanding of suburb in the US. [2]

That said, I don't yet see the need for quarter.  Both suburb and
neighborhood are vaguely defined as it is, so I'm not sure how another
vaguely defined term thrown into the mix helps.  Or, to ask a related
question, why can't neighborhoods overlap and/or be contained within each
other?

Brad

[1] ie
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-August/008438.html
[2]
Kind
of drives me nuts, personally, but it's got tens of thousands of uses in
OSM, so it is what it is.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On 9/27/2011 1:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> For example, in New York City, there are five well-defined boroughs (which
>>> coincide with counties, a sub-state-level division). Presumably these
>>> would
>>> be your "quarters".
>>>
>>
>>
>> na, those would be the suburbs. Currently they are tagged as hamlets ;-)
>>
>
> There's no way anyone would call Manhattan a suburb.
>
>
>> You are suggesting that we are lacking another level, right? This
>> could be dealt with in different ways.
>>
>
> No, I'm suggesting that neighborhoods should not have levels. They are
> simply amorphous blobs with no fixed hierarchy. Different organizations,
> e.g. the city or realtors, may attempt to define a number of neighborhoods
> that don't overlap, and hence are at the same level, but these are bound to
> be arbitrarily chosen and don't always match what residents will call their
> neighborhoods.
>
>
>> There could indeed be a place=subdivision for those smallest entities.
>> Please tell me, I am not familiar with American urbanism.
>>
>
> A subdivision is a piece of land for which a plat has been filed. A
> neighborhood, even one of these small ones, may comprise numerous
> subdivisions, or may be part of a single larger one.
>
> In the suburbs, a neighborhood is generally a single subdivision (or more
> properly several with similar names, e.g. Foo Phase I, Foo Phase II, etc.).
> The term subdivision is typically used in the U.S. to refer to these
> suburban residential subdivisions. Outside the suburbs it rarely has any use
> except when dealing with official records, e.g. property deeds.
>
>
> __**_
> 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] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 9/27/2011 1:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

For example, in New York City, there are five well-defined boroughs (which
coincide with counties, a sub-state-level division). Presumably these would
be your "quarters".



na, those would be the suburbs. Currently they are tagged as hamlets ;-)


There's no way anyone would call Manhattan a suburb.


You are suggesting that we are lacking another level, right? This
could be dealt with in different ways.


No, I'm suggesting that neighborhoods should not have levels. They are 
simply amorphous blobs with no fixed hierarchy. Different organizations, 
e.g. the city or realtors, may attempt to define a number of 
neighborhoods that don't overlap, and hence are at the same level, but 
these are bound to be arbitrarily chosen and don't always match what 
residents will call their neighborhoods.


There could indeed be a place=subdivision for those smallest entities.
Please tell me, I am not familiar with American urbanism.


A subdivision is a piece of land for which a plat has been filed. A 
neighborhood, even one of these small ones, may comprise numerous 
subdivisions, or may be part of a single larger one.


In the suburbs, a neighborhood is generally a single subdivision (or 
more properly several with similar names, e.g. Foo Phase I, Foo Phase 
II, etc.). The term subdivision is typically used in the U.S. to refer 
to these suburban residential subdivisions. Outside the suburbs it 
rarely has any use except when dealing with official records, e.g. 
property deeds.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/9/27 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 9/27/2011 12:40 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> After more discussions on the German ML it looks as if one subdivision
>> for suburbs (the proposed neighbourhood) was not enough, so we
>> invented another level in the hierarchy of settlement parts. As the
>> name for these parts as well as the structure depends heavily on local
>> history, tradition and culture it is somehow impossible to find a term
>> which fits (by its linguistic definition) into all needs. The proposed
>> value is "quarter" for the "place"-key. Keep in mind that also the
>> value "suburb" can not (by its most common interpretation) be
>> interpreted with common sense (you wouldn't call the city centre a
>> "suburb" normally - at least not outside Australia).
>
> There's a problem here: you're assuming that neighborhoods (and so-called
> quarters) are well-defined.


no, I don't


> While sometimes they are, it's very common to
> have neighborhoods that overlap partially or fully. This means that there's
> no real hierarchy of neighborhoods.


well, I agree, but that's not a problem. I can also imagine
place-polygons for neighbourhoods overlapping each other, if this
would be the way the locals see it.


> For example, in New York City, there are five well-defined boroughs (which
> coincide with counties, a sub-state-level division). Presumably these would
> be your "quarters".


na, those would be the suburbs. Currently they are tagged as hamlets ;-)


> Manhattan, one of these boroughs, is roughly divided
> into Lower, Midtown, and Upper Manhattan.


yes, those would be quarters


> But Upper Manhattan itself has
> sub-neighborhoods including Harlem and Inwood, and those have their own
> divisions such as Spanish Harlem.


those would be neighbourhoods (Spanish Harlem).


You are suggesting that we are lacking another level, right? This
could be dealt with in different ways.

One solution might be to have
Manhattan as administrative boundary, place=island
Upper Manhattan as suburb
Harlem as quarter
Spanish Harlem as neighbourhood

but I don't think thats satisfying

Probably for NYC you might want 4 levels because 3 are not enough ;-)

There could indeed be a place=subdivision for those smallest entities.
Please tell me, I am not familiar with American urbanism.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 9/27/2011 12:40 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

After more discussions on the German ML it looks as if one subdivision
for suburbs (the proposed neighbourhood) was not enough, so we
invented another level in the hierarchy of settlement parts. As the
name for these parts as well as the structure depends heavily on local
history, tradition and culture it is somehow impossible to find a term
which fits (by its linguistic definition) into all needs. The proposed
value is "quarter" for the "place"-key. Keep in mind that also the
value "suburb" can not (by its most common interpretation) be
interpreted with common sense (you wouldn't call the city centre a
"suburb" normally - at least not outside Australia).


There's a problem here: you're assuming that neighborhoods (and 
so-called quarters) are well-defined. While sometimes they are, it's 
very common to have neighborhoods that overlap partially or fully. This 
means that there's no real hierarchy of neighborhoods.


For example, in New York City, there are five well-defined boroughs 
(which coincide with counties, a sub-state-level division). Presumably 
these would be your "quarters". Manhattan, one of these boroughs, is 
roughly divided into Lower, Midtown, and Upper Manhattan. But Upper 
Manhattan itself has sub-neighborhoods including Harlem and Inwood, and 
those have their own divisions such as Spanish Harlem.


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

[Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb -> quarter -> neighbourhood

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

After more discussions on the German ML it looks as if one subdivision
for suburbs (the proposed neighbourhood) was not enough, so we
invented another level in the hierarchy of settlement parts. As the
name for these parts as well as the structure depends heavily on local
history, tradition and culture it is somehow impossible to find a term
which fits (by its linguistic definition) into all needs. The proposed
value is "quarter" for the "place"-key. Keep in mind that also the
value "suburb" can not (by its most common interpretation) be
interpreted with common sense (you wouldn't call the city centre a
"suburb" normally - at least not outside Australia).

The proposals can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place%3Dquarter
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place%3Dneighbourhood

comments welcome,

cheers,
Martin

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