Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Jul 28, 2016 9:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:
> From the older scheme there is also the boundary=national_park tag in use
with 18000 occurences:
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park

There's some reluctance in the US to use that tag for things that are not
national (Adirondack Park) or not parks (Green Mountain National Forest).
Those two examples are specific ones for which boundary=national _park
seemed the least misleading legacy tagging. Leisure=nature_reserve gets
applied to the more strongly protected areas inside.

I'm working hard to make sure that New York is ready for the new schema,
and I've added about 1500 boundary=protected_area tags over the last few
months. Don't punish me by saying that I must remove the less informative
tagging and have all that work disappear from the rendering while I'm
waiting for the database and renderer  to catch up. That's all I'm asking.

It seems that some of the purists here are answering, 'No. If you want to
see state forests, render the map yourself.' I do render it myself. I still
think other people would want to see them, too.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-27 19:34 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :

>
> I also note that it isn't just a US thing. Calling an "area of outstanding
> natural beauty" boundary=national_park, or a "regional park" or
> "marine protected area" leisure=nature_reserve is just as much
> tagging for the renderer as using one of those tags to label a
> National Forest, a state park, or any one of the other legal zoo
> of protected areas that we have over here, and yet I see such things
> all over the map of the UK. It's not a lie, exactly, quite. Those are all
> areas set aside to protect some aspect of nature. It's not quite
> as precise tagging as boundary=protected_area with an
> appropriate protect_class, but it seems to be impossible for even
> the Britons to resist tagging for the renderer to at least that extent.
>


+1, that's exactly the situation.

leisure=nature_reserve is a quite inclusive tag, any kind of natural
protection can get this tag. The tag boundary=protected_area is even
broader in meaning (e.g. including protection of cultural assets), but with
a subtag becomes more specific. Using both tags is not "lying" but telling
a story in details and getting understood and passed on only the most basic
sense.
>From the older scheme there is also the boundary=national_park tag in use
with 18000 occurences:
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-28 15:00 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> Isn't one of the problems that they would have to reimport the
> complete database ?
>


yes, but this is something that has to be done from time to time anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Kevin Kenny
 wrote:
> It's also a decision that can be deferred. Enabling hstore while keeping
> the existing columns would be Mostly Harmless, particularly if the keys

Isn't one of the problems that they would have to reimport the
complete database ?

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>  I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
> nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
> osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
> style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
> for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
> columns directly.
>

It's also a decision that can be deferred. Enabling hstore while keeping
the existing columns would be Mostly Harmless, particularly if the keys
that have identified columns are not duplicated in the hstore. It does have
the effect of making the hstore keys "second class citizens", but is
a lot better than the current approach of denying access altogether to
keys outside a specific, enumerated set.


> There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
> possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
> that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
> ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
> tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the
> map!"
>

"Niche requests" are an indicator of project vitality. Your statement
comes across as saying, "the lack of hstore provides us with a
convenient excuse not to be responsive to users and contributors."
I hope that isn't what you meant.

It's probably worth noting that in the related discussion of access=permit
that I'm not proposing ever to make a distinction between the types
for the purpose of rendering the main map. I simply want the information
for maps that I render myself. There's a huge difference between
"make a distinction between objects of type A and type B" and
"make a distinction between objects of type A and nothing."
The first suppresses detail, the second suppresses existence.

> That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> > choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> > public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> > marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)
>
> I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
> "faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
> into one central mapping style.
>

I agree wholeheartedly. It's important to note: that sword cuts both ways.
There's a fair amount in the way of Eurocentric (and, more specifically,
UK-centric) specialities baked into the current system. Unless handled
delicately, the whole localization issue comes across as relegating
non-European communities to their respective ghettos. But yes, we
do need maps better adapted to national and local conditions.

> I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
>
> I think you're just too impatient.
>
>
You're right. It's only about three years that the discussion of "hstore on
the central server" has been going on sporadically, during all of which
time I've been running an hstore-enabled rendering chain on my personal
tile server. I suppose it isn't reasonable to expect something like that to
happen in less than a decade.

I think that some people fail to comprehend the scale of the problem
over here. Without "tagging for the renderer", virtually nothing that you
see on https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/43.121/-74.539
would be visible: the major highways, city names, and waterbodies
would remain, but everything else would be gone. Not "badly rendered",
simply absent. And that's the case all over the continent -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/37.003/-110.814 shows what it's
like in the West. The National Parks, National Forests, BLM lands,
and so on are our administrative disticts in the rural US. Asking
to render an administrative boundary that encloses an area the size
of Slovenia, if not Belgium - as some of these areas do -
doesn't seem to me to be too unreasonable a request.

I also note that it isn't just a US thing. Calling an "area of outstanding
natural beauty" boundary=national_park, or a "regional park" or
"marine protected area" leisure=nature_reserve is just as much
tagging for the renderer as using one of those tags to label a
National Forest, a state park, or any one of the other legal zoo
of protected areas that we have over here, and yet I see such things
all over the map of the UK. It's not a lie, exactly, quite. Those are all
areas set aside to protect some aspect of nature. It's not quite
as precise tagging as boundary=protected_area with an
appropriate protect_class, but it seems to be impossible for even
the Britons to resist tagging for the renderer to at least that extent.
I see that they have the protected_area tagging in place on most
if not all of those areas, all ready to go when and if the renderer
supports it. I do that as well, on the areas that I've edited recently.

I'm not cleaning up the mess, exactly, quite. I'm just replacing
it in my area with a smaller and bette

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Dave Swarthout]

@Kevin; I'm glad to see someone is interested in clearing up the mess in
the Adirondack Park and sorry to hear about your frustration concerning
rendering of the protected areas in NYS. Although I no longer hike in that
area because I moved to Alaska in 1983 I have a strong and continuing
interest in it because for many years that was where I went to go
wilderness camping. I've hiked the High Peak region and walked the
Northville-Placid Trail. The many Wilderness and Primitive areas tagged
with landuse=forest is clearly inaccurate but the massive amount of work
needed to actually trace the wooded areas, swamps and bare mountain tops
that make up those Wilderness areas in order to tag them properly has
prevented me from even getting started.

To me, the landuse=forest tag is meant for tree covered areas that are
being grown and managed to supply wood for construction, paper, or what
have you. I'm not going to step into the landcover=trees vs natural=wood
controversy except the say that in the styles I use with the mkgmap program
I render them identically. Also, I think perhaps using a separate set of
styles for the U.S., Europe, Japan, or elsewhere might be a suitable
solution to the various inconsistencies we find in the OSM renderings

I don't have any other input at the moment that will help you but I want to
thank you for your work so far and to encourage you to continue your effort
to resolve those issues.

Cheers,
Dave



On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 07/27/2016 02:36 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > The part that I can't do anything about is getting hstore activated on
> > the main rendering database. That's a matter of turning a switch -
> > osmosis, osm2pgsql, mapnik, everything is ready for it - but this
> > problem isn't important enough for the amount of planning, testing and
> > downtime that would be needed to turn it.
>
> Who has told you that? I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
> nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
> osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
> style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
> for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
> columns directly.
>
> > Any change that
> > fundamental is a risk to the project
>
> It's a change that is more complicated than flicking a switch and other
> things might have priority, but "a risk to the project"? Really? Have
> you come up with that yourself or can you quote someone on that?
>
> > no issue that is important enough to justify the change will ever arise.
>
> There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
> possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
> that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
> ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
> tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the
> map!"
>
> > That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> > choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> > public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> > marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)
>
> I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
> "faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
> into one central mapping style.
>
> > I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
>
> I think you're just too impatient.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 07/27/2016 02:36 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> The part that I can't do anything about is getting hstore activated on
> the main rendering database. That's a matter of turning a switch -
> osmosis, osm2pgsql, mapnik, everything is ready for it - but this
> problem isn't important enough for the amount of planning, testing and
> downtime that would be needed to turn it. 

Who has told you that? I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
columns directly.

> Any change that
> fundamental is a risk to the project

It's a change that is more complicated than flicking a switch and other
things might have priority, but "a risk to the project"? Really? Have
you come up with that yourself or can you quote someone on that?

> no issue that is important enough to justify the change will ever arise.

There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the map!"

> That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)

I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
"faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
into one central mapping style.

> I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.

I think you're just too impatient.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 07/27/2016 06:23 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Even though I say it who shouldn't, I do a pretty fair job as a
> "consumer" of OSM data myself. It only increases my frustration to know
> that we could have an information-dense rendering like
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/karl.html?la=42.1694&lo=-74.1057&z=13 and
> don't.  

I think it is too much to ask of the map on www.openstreetmap.org to
offer the maximum degree of information density for all possible
purposes, and you should never choose your tagging according to "what
renders". I'm concerned to hear you talking of "telling as few lies as
possible" - it already sounds as if you're compromising data quality in
an attempt to "make it render". Don't do that.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

 On 07/27/2016 05:52 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 27/07/2016 03:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:

How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible on
any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org? If it hadn't been a couple or
three years already, I'd be more patient. A New Yorker would find it
astonishing not to see the Adirondack Park, which occupies about a sixth of
the land area of the state, but if it were not mistagged 'national park'
there would be nothing to trigger its rendering. The smaller state parks,
state forests, and similar reserves likewise would likewise have no
attributes visible to the renderer.


What exactly are you waiting for?  the magic map fairies to read the
tagging list and think "hmm - request for a new rendering of US Parks, must
set some time aside for that" :-)

It'd be nice to be able to customise the tile layers easily on osm.org, but
the only reason that it isn't is that no one has sat down and written the
code yet.  However, it is possible to use other tile layers with a bit of
browser trickery:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org
.  If you're not in a position to submit changes to osm.org yourself (and
I'm certainly not) you could perhaps try bribing potential developers with
donations, charitable or otherwise :).

Your "do it yourself or pay someone to do it" comment is a bit misplaced
and is coming across as a facile dismissal. Pointing me at "Mapnik for
beginners" is not helping.

I've already done it myself, starting from Lars Ahlzen's TopOSM, and I'm
happy with the result for my own use. (I haven't got the bandwidth to share
it far and wide.) https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/karl.html is a little
bit of GeoJSON atop my own basemap. I haven't changed it over to
protected_area rendering just yet because I'm still working on the
underlying data for my home state of New York, which is unusual in that has
very little in the way of national parks or national forests but a wealth
of state land, including the largest park of any sort in the Lower 48. The
Adirondack and Catskill Parks now have protected_area tagging on all their
parcels, but there's at least another few weeks of work getting the rest of
the state up to the same level. I've got about 1500 protected areas in
place, and another few hundred to do before I'll take another run at the
rendering.

The part that I can't do anything about is getting hstore activated on the
main rendering database. That's a matter of turning a switch - osmosis,
osm2pgsql, mapnik, everything is ready for it - but this problem isn't
important enough for the amount of planning, testing and downtime that
would be needed to turn it. That's not really fixable with time or money,
short of a new parallel data center! Any change that fundamental is a risk
to the project, and I just have to wait for something more important to
come along that will justify the move. I can't really foresee that
happening. The risk in making the change simply is not tolerable. I'd
venture to say that the change will never happen because the current
rendering is nearly good enough for most users, and no issue that is
important enough to justify the change will ever arise. Every project
reaches that level of maturity at some point, where the risk of breaking
something for everyone outweighs the potential reward of virtually any
change. A lot of business people don't take a technology seriously until it
reaches that level of stability.

That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
choices: beef up openstreetmap.us to be the public face of the project on
this side of the ocean (a disaster from a marketing perspective, to have
two competing faces), resign ourselves to the fact that our national
forests, state parks, and similar administrative regions will never appear
on the main map, or tag for the renderer. That's where we've been for a
couple of years now.

The other part that I can't do anything about is coming up with a suitably
artistic rendering style. The underlying problem there is that I'm
colour-blind. I come up with interfaces that are ugly to others, and many
of them come up with interfaces that are unusable to me without
technological assistance. I have appropriate assistive applications to be
able to discriminate the colours I can't see (I use them on a daily basis
to read statisticians' "heat maps"), but they won't tell me what will look
good.

If a pull request would solve the problem, I'd have done it a couple of
years ago. I've prepared a lot of data. I've configured osm2pgsql, osmosis
and mapnik to use it, and tested the resulting rendering. I've got "get
with Lars on reactiviating TopOSM" in the queue right after "get the State
Parks fixed" and "get the rendering on kbk.is-a-geek.net switched over to
protected_area".

I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/07/2016 03:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:
How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible 
on any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org 
? If it hadn't been a couple or three years 
already, I'd be more patient. A New Yorker would find it astonishing 
not to see the Adirondack Park, which occupies about a sixth of the 
land area of the state, but if it were not mistagged 'national park' 
there would be nothing to trigger its rendering. The smaller state 
parks, state forests, and similar reserves likewise would likewise 
have no attributes visible to the renderer.


What exactly are you waiting for?  the magic map fairies to read the 
tagging list and think "hmm - request for a new rendering of US Parks, 
must set some time aside for that" :-)


It'd be nice to be able to customise the tile layers easily on osm.org, 
but the only reason that it isn't is that no one has sat down and 
written the code yet.  However, it is possible to use other tile layers 
with a bit of browser trickery: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org 
.  If you're not in a position to submit changes to osm.org yourself 
(and I'm certainly not) you could perhaps try bribing potential 
developers with donations, charitable or otherwise :)


With regard to "what gets rendered at what scale" I'd agree that there 
is an issue with the styles on osm.org when showing "outdoor" features.  
The cycle map does probably the best job around e.g. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/36.4749/-121.2047 (just to pick 
somewhere I'm familiar with and is fairly path-complete) but it's not 
ideal.  Again, however, the reason why a style suited to outdoor areas 
especially in the US hasn't appeared is that no-one has yet created one.


However, it's really not _that_ difficult to tweak a version of OSM's 
standard map style (or another one) to both display existing features 
slightly differently and to display new features.



An example of the latter is in a lua script that I use for a local OSM 
style here:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L251


An example of "changing the zoom level at which something appears" is at:

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT/blob/master/landcover.mss#L474


If you can count brackets and change numbers to higher or lower values, 
you're mostly there!


Someone did ask over at the issue list for the standard style "how do I 
create a map style"


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2246

whilst the question wasn't really ontopic there, the answer I gave 
applies here too I think.


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-26 21:11 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :

> "boundary=protected_area" does not render. I don't expect, given the
> amount of progress toward rendering it in the last two or three years, that
> I'm going to see rendering of protected areas on any maps I don't produce.



I think there is no general opposition to render it, but it can't be
reasonably done until hstore gets activated or the required (sub)-keys are
imported as columns into the rendering db. boundary=protected_area without
protection classes is too generic to be rendered in a way that makes sense
for all its application cases.

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kevin Kenny wrote:
> How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible 
> on any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org?

This is going to sound snarky and it isn't meant as such, but: the number of
years until you send a pull request to openstreetmap-carto. :)

But remember that OSM is an international project and that a solution needs
to work internationally and be comprehensible in the lingua franca of the
project, which is British English. I'm not 100% sure that your definition of
"forest landuse" necessarily accords with that. But, that said, I've not
looked into it in any great depth so may be talking nonsense.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/State-parks-and-state-forests-specific-tagging-question-general-mapping-philosophy-tp5879163p5879223.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:34 PM, David Bannon 
wrote:

> Might be worth your while looking at how others are using the data, OsmAnd
> do a great job of rendering some of the detail found in the database. And
> make a pretty attractive looking map at the same time. There are lots of
> other 'consumers' of OSM data.


Even though I say it who shouldn't, I do a pretty fair job as a "consumer"
of OSM data myself. It only increases my frustration to know that we could
have an information-dense rendering like
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/karl.html?la=42.1694&lo=-74.1057&z=13
and don't.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[David Bannon]

On 27/07/16 12:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:
.

 How about we make a deal that when the "correct" tagging actually 
becomes visible on at least one layer of the main site, I go back and 
remove the "legacy" tagging, which can be done with a mechanical edit?
Kevin, I share your frustration but suggest that is the wrong approach. 
Image Feature A is correctly rendered but not so Feature B.  We won't 
encourage the rendering mob to render B by tagging everything as A.


Might be worth your while looking at how others are using the data, 
OsmAnd do a great job of rendering some of the detail found in the 
database. And make a pretty attractive looking map at the same time. 
There are lots of other 'consumers' of OSM data.


David


___
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] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/2016 5:11 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
>> But all right. I'll settle for either "landuse=forest" or
>> "leisure=nature_reserve" as something that at least does not misrender
>> horribly, and note that such tagging is retained for the benefit of legacy
>> renderers.+
>>
>
> Yuck.
>  Your 'state parks' are administrative boundaries. Don't tag for the
> render.


How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible on
any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org? If it hadn't been a couple or
three years already, I'd be more patient. A New Yorker would find it
astonishing not to see the Adirondack Park, which occupies about a sixth of
the land area of the state, but if it were not mistagged 'national park'
there would be nothing to trigger its rendering. The smaller state parks,
state forests, and similar reserves likewise would likewise have no
attributes visible to the renderer.

I know what protected areas I've added - about 1500 multipolygons of them.
I've got a file with relation and way ID's. (Plus, they were added under
distinct user IDs, so I can recover them by examining the edits made by
those users.) How about we make a deal that when the "correct" tagging
actually becomes visible on at least one layer of the main site, I go back
and remove the "legacy" tagging, which can be done with a mechanical edit?

SO THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION ABOVE: "How would other people divide and tag a
>> state park whose property line extends offshore?" (The particular case I
>> have in mind is fairly complex; there are places where the park's boundary
>> is coterminuous with the high tide line, other places where it's set back
>> some distance from the water, and yet other places where it extends far
>> down the foreshore or out into permanent open water.)
>>
>
> Tag the state park boundary as an administrative boundary, don't include
> any landcover tags on it.. the landcover should be a separate area/entity.


Right. landuse=forest isn't land cover, it's land use. natural=wood is land
cover. There's "forest" land that at the moment is "natural=scrub" because
it's managed as producing forest and recently harvested. And there's
"forest" land that's natural=wetland because the beavers have decided that
they're using it. (There's also "forest" land that is under the legal
fiction that it's being managed for timber production, but is so
resource-poor that it's unlikely to produce anything in the foreseeable
future. All I have to go on, for the most part, is the legal designation.)

>
>
>> TOP-DOWN vs BOTTOM-UP MAPPING
>>
>> It gets tremendously more complicated if detailed land use and land cover
>> are needed. Then there will be complex webs of multipolygons, sharing some
>> but not all of the ways. As a matter of fact, I have a strong preference
>> for NOT sharing ways among, say, preserve boundaries and things such as
>> "natural=wood" because they make editing really complicated and seldom
>> describe the situation in the field. Trees grow where they will unless
>> humans remove them. They are no respecters of property lines.
>>
>> Is that what everyone else does? Do even the roughest sketches (drawing
>> the boundaries of parks, for instance) with webs of multipolygons sharing
>> many of the ways, so that one set of multipolygons can be tagged for the
>> protected area, another for the land use, and still another the land cover?
>> If so, it seems to make for an editing nightmare.
>>
> Yep.. I'm on the side of separating the landcover and landuse ways .. they
> only follow one another for things like 'state forests' that are used for
> lumber production (primary use, secondaries of recreation and conservation)


That's what State Forest means in New York, and I've tagged State Forests
with landuse=forest. (Also boundary=protected_area protect_class=6, which
is obviously The Right Thing.) Alas, they tend to be large parcels, and the
'landuse=forest' tag, to a lot of people here, means that every square
metre should be covered with trees. Unfortunately for that assumption,
there are lots of waterways, marshes, rock outcrops, talus slopes, and
what-not within the State Forests.  Since it's all at least hypothetically
managed for production of forest products, it's all tagged with
'landuse=forest', resulting in trees being painted atop waterways and such
like. That's the result of not making a distinction between land use and
land cover. That's fine, I can live with rendering bugs if the objects are
at least present.

Lands that the state labels Wild Forest are something else entirely. Wild
Forest totally forbids sale, harvest, or destruction of timber. It's about
half a grade below Wilderness. The chief difference is the level to which
motorized access is permitted, which amounts to "Wild Forest - in certain
rare circumstances; Wilderness - never" and the fact that Wild Forest is
much more likely to be second-growth (although typi

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Warin]

On 7/27/2016 5:11 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
The immediate question: I have the boundary multipolygon for a large 
state park. The park has several stretches of waterfront. In some 
places the boundary of the park follows the high tide line. In others, 
it's set back from the shore (and the waterfront may have another 
owner). And in other cases the boundary extends far offshore (which 
may have implications for boaters). How best to divide and tag it so 
that the park exists as a unified entity, but does not result in 
rendering land or trees in the water?




Now from some gratuitous ranting, because I'm getting discouraged:


:-)You are not alone! My ideas below, feel free to disagree.



ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

My last question here, regarding how to tag public lands for which 
permission is required (but routinely granted) got answers that left 
me in a deeper state of confusion. The general consensus seemed to be 
"there is no difference between those and private lands other than the 
personality of the landowner, and they therefore must be tagged alike: 
access=private". That answer did not satisfy - I want a map that 
renders those cases differently, and things tagged alike cannot be 
rendered differently." Moreover, I don't hold out much hope that a 
formal proposal, wikified and voted, would end any differently; the 
voters are mostly on this list. (Also, nobody answered my question 
about how to initiate such a proposal.) I'm leaving Long Island 
mistagged with "access=yes" and not touching the "access=permit" on 
the New York City watershed parcels that I imported a few months ago 
(without a peep on "imports" about that detail of the proposal).


So that particular aspect of the project is "on hold" for now.

If you want finer detail then consider adding a sub tag e.g.
access=private
private= ... umm just how would you distinguish between a wilderness are 
where access permission is very restrictive and native lands where 
access is just a paper application that is easy to get and native lands 
where permission takes, say, 3 months of processing? You would need to 
consider what values to have for the 'private' key.  Once you do it and 
have some practicae at it .. add an OSM wiki page on it describing what 
it is so others know. I have a few wiki pages to add .. 
sport=hammer_throw, discus_throw, long_jump etc.




FOREST BOUNDARIES

I'm also trying hard not to resurrect the argument about "forests." 
The general consensus is that there simply is no way to tag the case, 
important in the US, of "a tract of land legally managed for wild-land 
resource production (wood and other products)." In this community, 
that idea simply cannot be separated from "land covered with trees". 
There are also other confusing ideas such as a "natural wood". The 
last, it appears, means either also "covered with trees" or else 
"virgin stands of old-growth forest", and also appears to connote 
"unmanaged" - which is a contradiction, since our few remaining tracts 
of wilderness are managed intensively to keep them that way. I've come 
to accept that any correct tagging will not render,


I and others take this view

natural=wood ... any area covered by trees ('natural' or not, managed or 
not)
landuse=forest .. any area of trees used to produce wood products - 
lumber, sap, oils etc.
and most nearly correct taggings will suffer from rendering gaffes 
like trees in water. (The concept of "a pond in the forest" apparently 
is sufficiently foreign that the phrase, on this forum, is nonsensical 
to the point of being meaningless: "surely you mean a pond SURROUNDED 
BY the forest?") So I do the best I can to tell as few lies as 
possible while still choosing a tagging that will be visible on the 
renderer, recalling that "boundary=protected_area" does not render. I 
don't expect, given the amount of progress toward rendering it in the 
last two or three years, that I'm going to see rendering of protected 
areas on any maps I don't produce.


Lets concentrate on the tagging - rendering is a separate issue with 
many choices.


A pond/lake in a forest - don't tag the water area with an area of trees.
Don't confuse an administrate area (state park) with land cover areas 
... these are separate features and should have their own separate OSM 
existence - and those OSM existences should be independent.


That's fine, I can live with doing my own rendering, although it 
increasingly means that I have to keep my own data on the side because 
there's no way to represent it semantically in OSM's tagging 
structure. It's at worst an inconvenience.


STATE PARKS (and many other types of public land)

New York, like many US States, has a system of "State Parks," which 
are land managed primarily for the purpose of public outdoor 
recreation. (Some of them have secondary purposes such as resource 
conservation. In particular, the large parks near the New York-New 
Jersey border exist at least in part to protect watershed for the 
c

[Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

The immediate question: I have the boundary multipolygon for a large state
park. The park has several stretches of waterfront. In some places the
boundary of the park follows the high tide line. In others, it's set back
from the shore (and the waterfront may have another owner). And in other
cases the boundary extends far offshore (which may have implications for
boaters). How best to divide and tag it so that the park exists as a
unified entity, but does not result in rendering land or trees in the water?



Now from some gratuitous ranting, because I'm getting discouraged:


ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

My last question here, regarding how to tag public lands for which
permission is required (but routinely granted) got answers that left me in
a deeper state of confusion. The general consensus seemed to be "there is
no difference between those and private lands other than the personality of
the landowner, and they therefore must be tagged alike: access=private".
That answer did not satisfy - I want a map that renders those cases
differently, and things tagged alike cannot be rendered differently."
Moreover, I don't hold out much hope that a formal proposal, wikified and
voted, would end any differently; the voters are mostly on this list.
(Also, nobody answered my question about how to initiate such a proposal.)
I'm leaving Long Island mistagged with "access=yes" and not touching the
"access=permit" on the New York City watershed parcels that I imported a
few months ago (without a peep on "imports" about that detail of the
proposal).

So that particular aspect of the project is "on hold" for now.

FOREST BOUNDARIES

I'm also trying hard not to resurrect the argument about "forests." The
general consensus is that there simply is no way to tag the case, important
in the US, of "a tract of land legally managed for wild-land resource
production (wood and other products)." In this community, that idea simply
cannot be separated from "land covered with trees". There are also other
confusing ideas such as a "natural wood". The last, it appears, means
either also "covered with trees" or else "virgin stands of old-growth
forest", and also appears to connote "unmanaged" - which is a
contradiction, since our few remaining tracts of wilderness are managed
intensively to keep them that way. I've come to accept that any correct
tagging will not render, and most nearly correct taggings will suffer from
rendering gaffes like trees in water. (The concept of "a pond in the
forest" apparently is sufficiently foreign that the phrase, on this forum,
is nonsensical to the point of being meaningless: "surely you mean a pond
SURROUNDED BY the forest?") So I do the best I can to tell as few lies as
possible while still choosing a tagging that will be visible on the
renderer, recalling that "boundary=protected_area" does not render. I don't
expect, given the amount of progress toward rendering it in the last two or
three years, that I'm going to see rendering of protected areas on any maps
I don't produce.

That's fine, I can live with doing my own rendering, although it
increasingly means that I have to keep my own data on the side because
there's no way to represent it semantically in OSM's tagging structure.
It's at worst an inconvenience.

STATE PARKS (and many other types of public land)

New York, like many US States, has a system of "State Parks," which are
land managed primarily for the purpose of public outdoor recreation. (Some
of them have secondary purposes such as resource conservation. In
particular, the large parks near the New York-New Jersey border exist at
least in part to protect watershed for the cities of New Jersey.)

Many, if not most of these parks, particularly the larger ones, are
multiple-use areas. They correspond roughly with "national park" in the
IUCN system - but I'm reluctant to use that terminology, since they are not
administered at the Federal level. "National Park" is a specific term in
the US, and it does not apply to State Parks. In any case,
"boundary=protected_area protect_class=2" seems made for them, and IUCN
appears to allow for the case where a government other than the national
one could designate such a thing. (On the other hand, on their site, they
accord New York's wilderness areas a protection class of VI - while they
enjoy virtually the strictest protection of any wilderness areas in the
country, and in my opinion are class Ib, and I tagged them thus.) So, I'll
accept that "state park" <=> "protected area". That doesn't help me with
rendering, of course. It'll just be a blank spot on the map.

So, what do to to make them show? "leisure=park" doesn't feel right. The
state parks I'm working on aren't small green spots in the city. Some have
large tracts of backcountry. A typical trekker will spend 2-3 nights in the
woods on a trip from Greenwood Lake to the Bear Mountain Bridge through the
parks. "landuse=forest" sort of works, except that every documented meaning
of that tag is a lie.