Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/19/2013 11:51 PM, Masi Master wrote: This is a bit away from the new valley mountain discus, but has a connection to the first mail. Tagging should be thought-out with possible examples, if we don't want to change the tagging or live with a bad tagging. Another example I had just yesterday was a lake called Seebergsee in the alps. The lake itself is comprised of a very small persistent lake which is well delimited, and a marsh which is filled with water during 1/3 of the year as the snow melts. Independently of the tagging (which is well delimited in this case), the name refers to the lake _and_ the marsh. Maybe there's some waterway relation magic for this specific case, but I'd rather use some consistent topological naming of areas also for these cases. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 18/ago/2013, alle ore 15:54, Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto: Just for clarity, I was really hoping to find an already-established tagging scheme for these features (named topological areas, valleys), and bringing up the schemes I found in several other places rather than trying to overcomplicate things. what is already there is mostly in the natural namespace or sometimes tagged as place=locality (mostly on nodes). Our data model (scale, db) is not suited very well for topographic areas (there are usually more low scale). A better solution would IMHO be to have multilingual shape files for this kind of data and mix them at render time cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 18/ago/2013, alle ore 17:29, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm ha scritto: This is already done for ridges, with natural=ridge. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dridge It is used a bit. Not sure if any renderers show it. ridges are linear I think something similar could be used for valleys. -1, valleys are areas It won't really work for mountain ranges, as they are often not linear. could they be relations with summits and ridges? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 18/ago/2013, alle ore 17:54, Christian Müller cmu...@gmx.de ha scritto: The term boundary does not make any implication on it's width. it has no width at all, it is a line A boundary may be defined on a nanometer, meter or kilometer scale. what doesn't say anything about a width, but tells you the grade of detail to expect Even political boundaries are in reality many meters wide, e.g. to defend them. Think of the historical inner german border for example. The Berlin Wall (the 2 walls and the space in between) was entirely on eastern German territory and wasn't the actual boundary (which was a few meters before the actual wall) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 18/ago/2013, alle ore 17:54, Christian Müller cmu...@gmx.de ha scritto: The term boundary does not make any implication on it's width. it has no width at all, it is a line -1. It may be _represented_ by a line, as declared by an entity. Even though the boundaries of territories may be declared using lines, you have to keep in mind that this is an abstraction. Often these lines just represent the center of a _buffer_ around a core area. A line of zero width is an abstraction for a boundary. Again, the term boundary does not make any implication on it's width. It may be represented by a line with zero width, but may just as well be by an area with constant or variing width as you walk around the core area to be defined. Of course, if you use an (buffer) area for definition, you may very well start to realize the recursive nature in trying to define a boundary - as you wonder about how to represent the boundary of the buffer area. Should it be a line of zero width or, again, be a buffer area? [..] This especially holds true for natural regions that originally might just have been declared by a mere description in a natural language. However you will find examples of this in other fields - take Bohr's model of the atom. The probability for an electron to reside in one shell won't change abruptly on the shells boundary abstracted by a sphere's surface of zero width. These shells are zones. Back to our matter of _topographic areas_ you will find a note about the abstract nature of boundaries elsewhere, e.g. in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_in_landscape_history If you focus on the last part of the second sentence, quote the boundary can often be seen by differences in land use on either side. you may find that the concept of natural boundaries is about finding similar features on one of two adjacent sides, separating them from similar-found features on the other. So a boundary separates one side from the other, or connects one side to the other, depending on the glass being half empty or half full. The criteria taken into account when grouping similar features to form undivided areas and the precision of measurement together determine how sharp or fuzzy this boundary between areas will be. To simplify the fact that in practice you will never find a zero width boundary you could also substitute: A boundary is an area between areas. When institutions define natural regions you will sometimes see this reflected in coined terms such as boundary zone. These are crippling a sharp, mathematically used, zero width expressed boundary into what effectively is an area boundary, since it's not feasible to narrow down a natural area, i.e. zone to a point where a zero-width line abstraction comes to mind naturally. Even political boundaries are in reality many meters wide, e.g. to defend them. Think of the historical inner german border for example. The Berlin Wall (the 2 walls and the space in between) was entirely on eastern German territory and wasn't the actual boundary (which was a few meters before the actual wall) It all depends on what exactly you refer to. In day-to-day life you should not find too many people that think of a zero width line abstraction when talking about this histo-political boundary. It may have been at the time it was declared, but there are other people having more insight on this. And it may have been a bad example, yes. Greetings ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: At the risk that this is mapping for the renderer, but what Wolfgang proposes is exactly how it is done on traditional paper maps. It gives you the possibility to label some loosely defined entity, by creating some labelling along a non visible way. However, there is a serious complication in this, which consists in the fact that you would have to assign some kind of importance to the label to allow the renderer to decide at which zoom levels to show the labelling and with what kind of visibility. A traditional paper mapper makes visibility decisions, which automated agents have more trouble with. For example: imagine three ridges, all named, all about the same length. Which should show at low zoom? A cartographer might know that the local residents refer to the third ridge most often, and that it is somehow more important. An automated agent could try: but the data is likely outside of OSM. Should it google for the name and count the hits? Send an email to nearby mappers? --- Some manual tweaking of the importance has wide applicability in OSM, despite the obvious disagreements on the exact rankings/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Am 17.08.2013, 17:13 Uhr, schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: The problem is, that multipolygon don't work in 2 cases: - The areas touch each other. - The areas are multipolygons. A multipolygon as a member in a other multipolygon is not allowed. Either we allowed this, or we need any relation which collect these things... You can always split the ways and use the parts tagged with outer/inner I thought about a lake, which has some parts with a own name. If we need an additional multipolygon for the whole lake, first we had to cut off the island twice (in the lake and the sub-lake), and second we can not tag both lakes with natural water, because we don't want to add more water to the database than exists. So in my eyes, we need both (upper) features for multipolygons. It prevent errors if an island is not cut off twice by multipolygon:inner. And the whole lake can be combined by the sub-lakes, without the natural=water tag. This is a bit away from the new valley mountain discus, but has a connection to the first mail. Tagging should be thought-out with possible examples, if we don't want to change the tagging or live with a bad tagging. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/17/2013 05:47 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: * fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com [130817 17:13]: On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and not an area? Boundaries describe an area but you are right that they are not really boundaries, especially if the border lines are not clearly defined [..] I'm under the impression this discussion is leading to ever more complicated ideas, due to the problem that the features we want to name on the map are not really clearly defined areas. Just for clarity, I was really hoping to find an already-established tagging scheme for these features (named topological areas, valleys), and bringing up the schemes I found in several other places rather than trying to overcomplicate things. While I agree that rendering should follow tagging, I also go by the idea that as long as the scheme is consistent, one could switch to an improved one later quickly enough. Also, the people involved with rendering should have a pretty decent overview of how the tags are actually used, corner cases and the limitations involved. This is as important as tagging itself IMHO (I was rendering navteq data in the past, so I value a lot input from software implementations). I'm not sure if this list is followed by people involved with styling/rendering OSM data itself? (please tell me if some other list might be more appropriate). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
At the risk that this is mapping for the renderer, but what Wolfgang proposes is exactly how it is done on traditional paper maps. It gives you the possibility to label some loosely defined entity, by creating some labelling along a non visible way. However, there is a serious complication in this, which consists in the fact that you would have to assign some kind of importance to the label to allow the renderer to decide at which zoom levels to show the labelling and with what kind of visibility. So, if we want to go this way, the thing is not quite as simple. We would need to define something like the equivalent of admin_level, may be an importance_level. Just my 2 cents - I admit this is not thought through in any way, but ... On 17 August 2013 17:47, Wolfgang Zenker wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org wrote: Hi, * fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com [130817 17:13]: On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and not an area? Boundaries describe an area but you are right that they are not really boundaries, especially if the border lines are not clearly defined [..] I'm under the impression this discussion is leading to ever more complicated ideas, due to the problem that the features we want to name on the map are not really clearly defined areas. Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature and tag it with name=*, topo_feature=mountain_range|ridge|valley|... A renderer that wants to display the name should draw it along that way with the length of the way giving a hint about the size of the feature. Wolfgang ___ 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] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 2013-08-17 16:47, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature and tag it with name=*, topo_feature=mountain_range|ridge|valley|... A renderer that wants to display the name should draw it along that way with the length of the way giving a hint about the size of the feature. This is already done for ridges, with natural=ridge. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dridge It is used a bit. Not sure if any renderers show it. I think something similar could be used for valleys. It won't really work for mountain ranges, as they are often not linear. Craig ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and not an area? Boundaries describe an area but you are right that they are not really boundaries, especially if the border lines are not clearly defined The problem is, that multipolygon don't work in 2 cases: - The areas touch each other. - The areas are multipolygons. A multipolygon as a member in a other multipolygon is not allowed. Either we allowed this, or we need any relation which collect these things... You can always split the ways and use the parts tagged with outer/inner (What the renderer do, is not primary. If we find a good tagging, the renderer should follow the tagging, not backwards.) Forget the renderer but think about all software. It is probably easier to use an established system with one more subtag than clone the system and use a new type and at least admin_centre would be useful. Cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Hi, * fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com [130817 17:13]: On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and not an area? Boundaries describe an area but you are right that they are not really boundaries, especially if the border lines are not clearly defined [..] I'm under the impression this discussion is leading to ever more complicated ideas, due to the problem that the features we want to name on the map are not really clearly defined areas. Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature and tag it with name=*, topo_feature=mountain_range|ridge|valley|... A renderer that wants to display the name should draw it along that way with the length of the way giving a hint about the size of the feature. Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org wrote: I'm under the impression this discussion is leading to ever more complicated ideas, due to the problem that the features we want to name on the map are not really clearly defined areas. +1 Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature or we could simply admit that OSM project is currently unable to map such big features with fuzzy borders... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/17 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature or we could simply admit that OSM project is currently unable to map such big features with fuzzy borders... +1, a way is surely not a good representation. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
* Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at [2013-08-09 07:28 +0200]: I also dislike the suggested special member roles: The positioning of the label depends on the font size, the free space, the map section and zoom level etc. and should therefore be determined by the renderer. I tend to think of label nodes as hints for the renderer that provide it with information it cannot derive on its own. The canonical example, I think, is a town where it makes sense to place the label over the town center, which residents of the place can usually identify easily, but which may not necessarily match the geometric center (or centroid) of the town's border. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: I tend to think of label nodes as hints for the renderer that provide it with information it cannot derive on its own. The canonical example, I think, is a town where it makes sense to place the label over the town center, which residents of the place can usually identify easily, but which may not necessarily match the geometric center (or centroid) of the town's border. +1 And a trickier example: a camp complex with four buildings, all with a name=. At lower zoom levels which building's name should show? The rendering needs a hint to know what name=Camp Office is of broader interest than name=Maintenance Shed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/08/2013 11:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region, region:type=valley? I'd use type=multipolygon natural=valley I'm still not satisfied with type=multipolygon: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon#Detailed_tagging specifically: * The relation has tags: Use the relation tagging. Ignore anything on the ways. However, this is not what should happen for a lake group where each lake name is independent (ie, the group is just a topological feature). And, as I said before, unnamed lakes should not inherit the name of the group. After re-reading the whole thread, I tend to agree with fly more, as a boundary type seem to be much more appropriate: type=boundary boundary=topologic natural=water name=lake group name the boundary relation has the advantage of not requiring a fake polygon (as opposed to place=locality). I have two examples of type=multipolygon which I introduced: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3126464 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3126459 whole type=multipolygon relation simply broke the rendering (but renderers here seem to be compliant). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 09.08.2013 07:34, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 08.08.2013 21:15, fly wrote: On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. +100 Especially, if you read: Relations are not meant to be used as collections It is interesting that you agree by +100 although your reason is the negation of Pieren's reason. Not at all but the meaning is different: * All relations are some kind of collection caused by design. * You should not use a relation to simply collect/group some objects together. This means I do not need a relation for all German Autobahns or all bus lines in a city or even all valleys of a mountain group. Even site-relations should only be used if it does not work without it (several non-connected areas). Another reason I am against this collection is that you might not always have the same borders with the subgroup (valleys). You will need to create a new (sub)-relation to get only part of it into your collection. Please use boundaries and not multipolygons ! cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 10/ago/2013, alle ore 18:17, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com ha scritto: Please use boundaries and not multipolygons ! for valleys?? boundaries are linear objects (generally delimiting areas), multipolygons are areas cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmannb...@volki.at wrote: It should rather be a type=collection relation. I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often used for features on multiple sites. You can think of type=collection as an abbreviation of type=bare_and_general_collection. All other relations have special members (e.g. inner/outer in multipolygons) or at least special meanings (type=route). type=cluster has also been suggested. I would be ok with it, but it would require a proposal to make it more popular. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 06.08.2013 15:51, Yuri D'Elia wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866 which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation. Unfortunately, the relation has some problems: - not rendered anywhere? This is a super-relation, with other relations as members. This is not allowed for multipolygon relations. It should rather be a type=collection relation. This is how water areas such as riverbanks use to be joined, and I use collection relations for sets of rocks etc. too. Don't expect dumb renderers like Mapnik to render superrelations, though. Very good explaination. It seems to me that the closest tagging scheme might be a loose area with place=locality. Would that be a good idea? That depends on what the name belongs to. If it's the name of a lake, forest, or other physical feature, place=* would be just wrong. After reading all the replies, it seems that if a group of lakes has a name, I would probably use either a multipolygon (if feasible) or a super-relation, with the appropriate natural tag. Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location sounds reasonable. It also looks like that the ThunderForest maps are correctly rendering the place=location tag: http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=11lat=46.5215lon=11.37205layers=000B I will now convert this group to a super-relation. My issue with normal multipolygons is also that smaller, unnamed lakes inherit the name of the relation, which is incorrect. These proposals are somewhat obsolete, as natural=* has widely been accepted as the key for all geomorphological features. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural, group 3. A valley is just the complement of a ridge or arete. Just draw a line along the valley and tag it with natural=valley. I still have doubts about this. For the valley I'm speaking about the whole region, which is an area. By looking at your next pointer (about mountain_range), it looks like I can follow the same scheme and use region_type=valley as a subtype. Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. natural=mountain_range is already in use for the Alps. The mountain groups within the Eastern Alps are tagged place=region, see the members of relation 2113486. This has been incredibly helpful! I assume this is the data that is being used to render the topographic map at dianacht.de? (http://geo.dianacht.de/topo/) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 17:47, Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto: Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location sounds reasonable. thing is that place=locality is very generic, you don't get additional information what the name refers to, especially if tagged on a node cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/08/2013 07:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location sounds reasonable. thing is that place=locality is very generic, you don't get additional information what the name refers to, especially if tagged on a node Understood. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/08/2013 08:56 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmannb...@volki.at wrote: It should rather be a type=collection relation. I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often used for features on multiple sites. You can think of type=collection as an abbreviation of type=bare_and_general_collection. All other relations have special members (e.g. inner/outer in multipolygons) or at least special meanings (type=route). type=cluster has also been suggested. I would be ok with it, but it would require a proposal to make it more popular. What about type=site with the appropriate natural tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site I was just looking at the wiki, and type=collection seems to be pretty frowned upon. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. natural=mountain_range is already in use for the Alps. The mountain groups within the Eastern Alps are tagged place=region, see the members of relation 2113486. So, I was looking about using place=region for valleys. At least for the valleys I was looking into, it seems that Italy already has a boundary=administrative multipolygon for most of them, although in rare cases some natural features are more detailed than the administrative boundary. Let's take this for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/47143 where the administrative boundary matches exactly with the actual valley. I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region, region:type=valley? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: It should rather be a type=collection relation. I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. +100 Especially, if you read: Relations are not meant to be used as collections cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 06.08.2013 19:25, Yuri D'Elia wrote: The message from fly, about about boundary=topologic/geographic though would solve nicely valleys, mountain groups _and_ other topographic features under a single umbrella, and it's quite easy to achieve. to fly: Is this some form of official proposal? As official as this mailing list. I will not have the time nor power to make it an proposal but you are welcome to take my idea. Using boundaries has a lot of advantages as there are already well establish super-relations and labels to describe the capital of the area if existing. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 20:45, Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto: I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region, region:type=valley? I'd use type=multipolygon natural=valley cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 19:39, Yuri D'Elia wrote: At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often used for features on multiple sites. [...] What about type=site with the appropriate natural tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site See my paragraph that I quoted on top. Now in more detail: The proposal says: If all the elements contained within an area (the perimeter) belong to the site, and no elements of the site exist outside the area, then it is inappropriate to use this relation. That means that the relation should only be used for elements in differing locations, i.e. NOT on one site. It is absurd to call that a site relation. I also dislike the suggested special member roles: The positioning of the label depends on the font size, the free space, the map section and zoom level etc. and should therefore be determined by the renderer. The perimeter is implied by the other members. The entrance is implied by the entrance=* node(s) on the perimeter. All in all, I see nothing good in the type=site proposal. I was just looking at the wiki, and type=collection seems to be pretty frowned upon. I don't know about the frowning. If you just look at pros and cons, you will prefer type=collection over type=site. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 21:15, fly wrote: On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. +100 Especially, if you read: Relations are not meant to be used as collections It is interesting that you agree by +100 although your reason is the negation of Pieren's reason. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:19 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 06.08.2013 16:27, Yuri D'Elia wrote: Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I think the best would be to invent a new boundary type. boundary=topologic or geographic topologic/geographic=valley/cordillera/mountain_range/region and some ranking for the categories As the borders are often not that clear and also not that important they should not be rendered and do not have to be that exact but for rendering names like in [1] we need them. This solution can also apply to bodies of water that are not whole lakes or rivers. We currently (I think) do not tag the extent (even if fuzzy) of seas, bays, inlets, coves, fjords, and the like. The International Hydrographic Organization has published a document delimiting the oceans and major seas of the world: Limits of Oceans Seas, Special Publication No. 23. Smaller bodies of water may be delimited by national governments. The natural=coastline can be used to build up area relations of the proposed type=topologic/geography and extra ways can be used elsewhere. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 07/ago/2013, alle ore 10:00, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com ha scritto: This solution can also apply to bodies of water that are not whole lakes or rivers. We currently (I think) do not tag the extent (even if fuzzy) of seas, bays, inlets, coves, fjords, and the like. don't know about the rest, but there are 3 natural=bay in the db http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natural%3Dbay cheers, Martin___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 07/ago/2013, alle ore 10:00, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com ha scritto: We currently (I think) do not tag the ***extent*** (even if fuzzy) of seas, bays, inlets, coves, fjords, and the like. don't know about the rest, but there are 3 natural=bay in the db http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natural%3Dbay ... and 29000 of them are nodes, i.e. no extent. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=bay Geir Ove ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
The best way I can think of for drawing oceans, is to put a tag on all natural=coastline ways that are bordering it. Something like ocean:name:en=Atlantic ocean. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/7 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com The best way I can think of for drawing oceans, is to put a tag on all natural=coastline ways that are bordering it. Something like ocean:name:en=Atlantic ocean. If you look closely onto this you'll see that there are not only the oceans but a whole hierarchy of names seas and oceans and parts of them, so there is not only one name per coastline but a lot of them. Dependent on the scale of your map you'll emphasize different ones and omit others. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/7 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com If you look closely onto this you'll see that there are not only the oceans but a whole hierarchy of names seas and oceans and parts of them, so there is not only one name per coastline but a lot of them. Dependent on the scale of your map you'll emphasize different ones and omit others. +1 That's why I chose ocean, because I'm sure there's only one on each coastline. There can be more than one bay or sea, like the Mediterranean and the Adriatic sea. Relations are not possible, there's too much ways, so the only thing I can think of are tags like sea_level_1:name:en=Mediterranean sea, sea_level_2:name:en=Adriatic sea. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 06.08.2013 15:51, Yuri D'Elia wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866 which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation. Unfortunately, the relation has some problems: - not rendered anywhere? This is a super-relation, with other relations as members. This is not allowed for multipolygon relations. It should rather be a type=collection relation. This is how water areas such as riverbanks use to be joined, and I use collection relations for sets of rocks etc. too. Don't expect dumb renderers like Mapnik to render superrelations, though. It seems to me that the closest tagging scheme might be a loose area with place=locality. Would that be a good idea? That depends on what the name belongs to. If it's the name of a lake, forest, or other physical feature, place=* would be just wrong. I saw several proposed tags in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Region http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Valley but not really an official tagging scheme. Valley names are very important features for a topographic map. These proposals are somewhat obsolete, as natural=* has widely been accepted as the key for all geomorphological features. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural, group 3. A valley is just the complement of a ridge or arete. Just draw a line along the valley and tag it with natural=valley. Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. natural=mountain_range is already in use for the Alps. The mountain groups within the Eastern Alps are tagged place=region, see the members of relation 2113486. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: It should rather be a type=collection relation. I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Hi everyone. I'm in the alps, and I've been mapping some areas in the region. I have two questions regarding tagging where I couldn't find a decent consensus on the wiki. There are many areas in the region that go by a specific name. I have two cases where a group of lakes (as a whole) is known by a name, but then each single lake has also his own lake. I found an existing example in France, Les 7 Eaux: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866 which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation. Unfortunately, the relation has some problems: - not rendered anywhere? I would expect that when the scale is high enough, and there's no place to render the lake names, the name of the relation is shown. But it's not. On the contrary, unnamed lakes simply take the name of the relation. - sometimes I not only have lakes, but I might have other features inside that area, that are logically part of the same known spot. Is a relation still a good idea in that case? It seems to me that the closest tagging scheme might be a loose area with place=locality. Would that be a good idea? I did a test, here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/46.4696/10.7590 but again, no renderers seem to pick up this important information (the name - the boundary itself is not important!), which would be especially important for a topographic and landscape map. A related question is the name of the valleys. I saw several proposed tags in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Region http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Valley but not really an official tagging scheme. Valley names are very important features for a topographic map. Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. Thanks! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. I don't know about the others, but I've been thinking about this one, and there's a simple solution. Drawing a big polygon around the whole mountain is not very effective. There are no clear boundaries for a mountain. But what we can do is put a tag like mountain=* on all natural=peak nodes. Maybe even on alpine_huts and other features. That way some software could find arbitrary boundaries using that data and SRTM data. Maybe valleys can be solved in the same way. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/06/2013 04:14 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. I don't know about the others, but I've been thinking about this one, and there's a simple solution. Drawing a big polygon around the whole mountain is not very effective. There are no clear boundaries for a mountain. But what we can do is put a tag like mountain=* on all natural=peak nodes. Maybe even on alpine_huts and other features. That way some software could find arbitrary boundaries using that data and SRTM data. Maybe valleys can be solved in the same way. Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I'm thorn. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. I wouldn't tag rivers or forests with those tags, just nodes or little ways. Tagging everything within the mountain with that tag would create lots of data that could be considered garbage. But if you only tag peaks and alpine_huts, maybe it could be manageable. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. I made this picture, maybe it clears my point: http://i.imgur.com/CeFG2WO.png A software would look for the lowest contour line (altitude) that is between points with different mountain tags. I have a feeling it would work, but I never tried it. Maybe some problems would arise. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Maybe the solution is a separate OSM database, used specifically for these polygons. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 06.08.2013 16:27, Yuri D'Elia wrote: On 08/06/2013 04:14 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. Did you have a look the picture of the week [1] a few weeks ago ? I don't know about the others, but I've been thinking about this one, and there's a simple solution. Drawing a big polygon around the whole mountain is not very effective. There are no clear boundaries for a mountain. But what we can do is put a tag like mountain=* on all natural=peak nodes. Maybe even on alpine_huts and other features. That way some software could find arbitrary boundaries using that data and SRTM data. No this will not work. We need some sort of area and probably more than one tag, plus a hut might be in a valley, a mountain subsubgroup, a mountain subgroup and a mountain group and still in an extra region Maybe valleys can be solved in the same way. Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Still I think it is the only way to go Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I think the best would be to invent a new boundary type. boundary=topologic or geographic topologic/geographic=valley/cordillera/mountain_range/region and some ranking for the categories As the borders are often not that clear and also not that important they should not be rendered and do not have to be that exact but for rendering names like in [1] we need them. My 2 cents fly - [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Maxbe-stubaier-beschriftung_en.png ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/06/2013 04:27 PM, Yuri D'Elia wrote: Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I'm thorn. I'm attaching a crude osm file I edited quickly to demonstrate the problem. Valleys usually end exactly at the mountain ridges. Valleys also end at the border of a mountain region or at the border of another valley. Between valleys, the border is purely arbitrary (it's mostly determined by geographic properties). In the alps I would expect a mosaic which is essentially totally filled with valleys. A relation would be great to re-use existing geometry, but some new boundary type will also be needed to mark the end where's no additional geometry can be reused. I also created two (inexact) mountain groups. Mountain groups actually form a complimentary mosaic, as you see in the file. A mountain group would start at the middle of a valley (which I didn't do in the example, but you get the point) and end at another one. The only exception might be where you have very large valleys, like the Val D'Adige, where the group doesn't start in the middle exactly (but doing so wouldn't exactly be wrong either). For mountain groups I do not see any existing geometry that could be reused, except occasionally for the nodes where the valleys cross. A new boundary type is definitely needed, and the edges could be shared with a mountain group relation. ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' upload='true' generator='JOSM' node id='-385' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.6430679777813' lon='11.052495557349316' / node id='-366' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.49188168894685' lon='11.043871730621769' / node id='-347' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.459302571583' lon='10.36979709656485' / node id='-345' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.348707668264105' lon='10.364026723600112' / node id='-343' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.31049752324693' lon='10.494821428967915' / node id='-341' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.356644089129794' lon='10.727664750611696' / node id='-339' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.42752467234013' lon='10.91235837302667' / node id='-337' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.59815137198975' lon='11.092740082077869' / node id='-335' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.601607818458966' lon='10.867083282707044' / node id='-333' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.61197583489281' lon='10.763597361976476' / node id='-332' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.60802634834044' lon='10.573873173970435' / node id='-321' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.83957020991874' lon='10.644301092245405' / node id='-319' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.805147933633975' lon='10.724790141702512' / node id='-317' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.82088656606407' lon='10.826838757978491' / node id='-315' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.930928039250446' lon='11.023030816030195' / node id='-313' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.8955821746472' lon='11.125798084533468' / node id='-311' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.81252599107442' lon='11.23718917976429' / node id='-308' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.697313033657714' lon='11.088428168714096' / node id='-306' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.67315605116175' lon='11.047464991758245' / node id='-304' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.62678384457391' lon='10.862771369343271' / node id='-303' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.641587804517854' lon='10.611243089789806' / node id='-223' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.39911725379921' lon='10.983395899954589' / node id='-221' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.4202488648184' lon='11.004914609498558' / node id='-219' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.436595031792024' lon='10.971137954815664' / node id='-213' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.644455683599396' lon='11.210808472618753' / node id='-211' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.52888351182877' lon='11.30495191439448' / node id='-209' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.476944108594104' lon='11.358850831441648' / node id='-207' action='modify'
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net On 08/06/2013 04:27 PM, Yuri D'Elia wrote: It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I'm thorn. I'm attaching a crude osm file I edited quickly to demonstrate the problem. Valleys usually end exactly at the mountain ridges. Valleys also end at the border of a mountain region or at the border of another valley. +1, valleys aren't too big usually and should be clearly defined, there is already a proposal for ridges and it is also used: natural=ridge http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natural%3Dridge to define a valley it should be enough to add the adjacent ridges to an area relation (type=area) and add tags like natural=valley, name=* ... renderers could in the future connect the ridged to create an (implicit) area (e.g. to put a text inside). For other areas other data types might be more adequate: Some years ago on the German ML there was this interesting idea to define (fuzzy) areas (e.g. lower scale topographic regions like the European Alps). You put existing objects (like nodes, ways or relations) into a relation with the roles inside or outside and some algorithm would calculate an area that includes all inside and excludes all outside objects. You won't have to be very precise with this, as this kind of rough information is only required on lower scales where some kilometers more or less won't change anything, just a few nodes should suffice to define something as huge as the Alps, and you could reuse (preferably simple and stable like peak-nodes) existing geometry. In the alps I would expect a mosaic which is essentially totally filled with valleys. +1 A relation would be great to re-use existing geometry, but some new boundary type will also be needed to mark the end where's no additional geometry can be reused. if you need explicit boundaries between 2 valleys (see above the area relation which doesn't require to explicitly draw these, but allows to do so if required (role=lateral). I also created two (inexact) mountain groups. Mountain groups actually form a complimentary mosaic, as you see in the file. A mountain group would start at the middle of a valley (which I didn't do in the example, but you get the point) and end at another one. +1, usually you will have a river or stream there, as it is the locally lowest point (i.e. the needed geometry is already there). An argument against reusing rivers to define mountain groups is that they often add a lot of complexity and you'd usually not need the borders of a mountain group with the precision this allows for (adding relations augments complexity and raises the barrier for other mappers to edit). Cheers, Martin http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dridge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/06/2013 07:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: For other areas other data types might be more adequate: Some years ago on the German ML there was this interesting idea to define (fuzzy) areas (e.g. lower scale topographic regions like the European Alps). You put existing objects (like nodes, ways or relations) into a relation with the roles inside or outside and some algorithm would calculate an area that includes all inside and excludes all outside objects. You won't have to be very precise with this, as this kind of rough information is only required on lower scales where some kilometers more or less won't change anything, just a few nodes should suffice to define something as huge as the Alps, and you could reuse (preferably simple and stable like peak-nodes) existing geometry. The message from fly, about about boundary=topologic/geographic though would solve nicely valleys, mountain groups _and_ other topographic features under a single umbrella, and it's quite easy to achieve. to fly: Is this some form of official proposal? Calculating a concave hull from points, especially where you have nested geometry is very messy process (I used to do it as a gis developer in the past). I wouldn't really expect decent results even for name placement. +1, usually you will have a river or stream there, as it is the locally lowest point (i.e. the needed geometry is already there). An argument against reusing rivers to define mountain groups is that they often add a lot of complexity and you'd usually not need the borders of a mountain group with the precision this allows for (adding relations augments complexity and raises the barrier for other mappers to edit). Ridges can also be quite complex. Also, many times they end way before the end of the end of the hill or do not exist at all (flat top mountains). Just to say that the geometry might not always be there. Also, is there a tagging scheme for the lowest point/depression of a valley? (I was looking for it recently). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Ridges can also be quite complex. Also, many times they end way before the end of the end of the hill or do not exist at all (flat top mountains). good point Just to say that the geometry might not always be there. Also, is there a tagging scheme for the lowest point/depression of a valley? (I was looking for it recently). waterway=river or stream cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging