Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:46:42PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-01-09 13:15 GMT+01:00 ael : > (relatively recently). For many years, OSM didn't have a way to map bridges > and was relying on indirect mapping methods (state on a highway or railway > that it runs on a bridge, the bridge=yes property, or connect several of > those ways that run over a bridge with a bridge relation). Now there is > man_made=bridge, pretty established and even rendered in the main style. Ah. I have just seen the wiki page where it seems man_made=bridge should not be applied to simple ways. So I am back to inventing an outline. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:46:42PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-01-09 13:15 GMT+01:00 ael : > > > This thread has reminded me that I have encountered problems with > > mapping disused quarries and surface mining. > > > > The quarries that I have in mind are major geographical features - they > > have not been filled in. I tried tagging them as landuse=quarry and > > disused=yes. If landuse really does mean current use of an area, that > > looks contradictory. Often such old quarries are now in use for > > recreation, often the water filled part for watersports. So perhaps that > > is "land"use=recreation or landuse=quarry;recreation? It seem clear that > > there is a problem here. A (large) quarry is perhaps geographical rather > > than landuse? > > > > > +1, I completely agree with your assessment: a quarry can often be > significant after people have stopped extracting minerals. I can be > publicly accessible and used for recreation, which allows us to tag the > recreational function, but we miss on the physical aspects, i.e. that it > has been a quarry. You might tag it like disused:landuse=quarry, but the > tag sounds a bit like an oxymoron. > Maybe historic=quarry? Maybe. So long as it gets rendered. The discussion about rendering the "dangerous" quarry edges/cliffs does impose much more burden on the mapper. I have actually walked along some of these edges collecting gps traces, but it was not something that I felt comfortable doing. Even when there is decent satellite imagery available it is still a lot of extra work. Whereas, if an area is mapped as a quarry, disused or not, it carries the implication that there may be steep unguarded faces and other potential hazards in the area. Of course, I am not against trying to add such detail as appropriate, but an initial simple description of "quarry" should carry the appropriate implications that caution is needed. The particular quarries that I have in mind also have extremely high "spoil" heaps/extensions. At a guess (without finding the right gps traces), some are well over 50 metres high. These are generally composed of large blocks of discarded granite: the individual blocks can be several metres across. These areas are difficult to access and hazardous to navigate for mapping purposes. At present I have mapped them roughly as part of the outline of the "quarry". They need rendering somehow. If a "disused" quarry is not to be rendered, then these too need a tag. I suppose embankment might be a possibility here. I definitely agree that that is the wrong tag for the (vertical) faces that are present in these particular historic quarries. I have learnt about several possibiliites in this thread, but how should I have found out about them? I happen to skim this tagging list, but most mappers will not: how do they find out about current practice? > > I have the same problem with historic surface mining areas: these are > > major features on the landscape, often with very large excavations, and > > need > > recording/rendering, yet now are "just" moorland or have other uses. > > Again, I didn't think landuse=surface_mining + historic + disused worked > > and certainly didn't render. > > > > +1, very similar case. > As an alternative to disused:landuse=* you could use > historic=surface_mining (but it will typically be a very huge polygon) > > > > > I am tempted to bring up the case of major bridges which are parts of > > abandoned railways not being rendered. While that really is a bug in the > > renderers, if we had some tag for major physical features that would > > be rendered regardless of any historic or disused tags. it would solve > > many such problems. > > > > > this has already been solved when bridges were introduced to OSM > (relatively recently). For many years, OSM didn't have a way to map bridges > and was relying on indirect mapping methods (state on a highway or railway > that it runs on a bridge, the bridge=yes property, or connect several of > those ways that run over a bridge with a bridge relation). Now there is > man_made=bridge, pretty established and even rendered in the main style. > I thought that I had tried man_made=bridge before and it did not render. I have just tried again, and it is still not rendering. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331737846 unless I am too impatient. The old way of marking a tile as dirty to get the rendering updated does not seem to work any more. See also http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/pm-006-1301-woodhill-bridge-0551r_orig.jpeg ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
2017-01-09 13:15 GMT+01:00 ael : > This thread has reminded me that I have encountered problems with > mapping disused quarries and surface mining. > > The quarries that I have in mind are major geographical features - they > have not been filled in. I tried tagging them as landuse=quarry and > disused=yes. If landuse really does mean current use of an area, that > looks contradictory. Often such old quarries are now in use for > recreation, often the water filled part for watersports. So perhaps that > is "land"use=recreation or landuse=quarry;recreation? It seem clear that > there is a problem here. A (large) quarry is perhaps geographical rather > than landuse? > +1, I completely agree with your assessment: a quarry can often be significant after people have stopped extracting minerals. I can be publicly accessible and used for recreation, which allows us to tag the recreational function, but we miss on the physical aspects, i.e. that it has been a quarry. You might tag it like disused:landuse=quarry, but the tag sounds a bit like an oxymoron. Maybe historic=quarry? > I have the same problem with historic surface mining areas: these are > major features on the landscape, often with very large excavations, and > need > recording/rendering, yet now are "just" moorland or have other uses. > Again, I didn't think landuse=surface_mining + historic + disused worked > and certainly didn't render. > +1, very similar case. As an alternative to disused:landuse=* you could use historic=surface_mining (but it will typically be a very huge polygon) > I am tempted to bring up the case of major bridges which are parts of > abandoned railways not being rendered. While that really is a bug in the > renderers, if we had some tag for major physical features that would > be rendered regardless of any historic or disused tags. it would solve > many such problems. > this has already been solved when bridges were introduced to OSM (relatively recently). For many years, OSM didn't have a way to map bridges and was relying on indirect mapping methods (state on a highway or railway that it runs on a bridge, the bridge=yes property, or connect several of those ways that run over a bridge with a bridge relation). Now there is man_made=bridge, pretty established and even rendered in the main style. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On 10.01.2017 10:47, Zecke wrote: Artificial rock faces in quarries and open pit mines, called berms, are created due to blasting. The faces are typically inclined 60-70° with drops of max. a few tenth of meters. This fundamental difference might be best taken into account by using man_made=embankment for these. I have to contradict in one point. I know of a lot of former and present quarries where the faces are inclined 90° and ten'ths of meters high. Maybe this is not so much the point for open pit mines. But tagging should be ready to cope with non-natural steep faces. I see no problem however in using some man_made key for this. "embankment" might be misleading, however. What about man_made=cliff for non-natural steep drops? The renderer then could decide whether to choose differentiating drawing. (Most probably he won't do so). Yes, the OSM-definition for man_made=embankment covers other purposes and should not be used for a cliff in a current or former quarry. I would not be in favour of a new man_made=cliff tag, since it was not man's intention to erect e cliff, it was the intention to dig out the material. I still see natural=cliff applicable, combined with a sub-tag if needed. As for the angles, I have climbed on cliffs formed by erosion (includung sea cliffs) and in former quarries, which can have all angles from leaning, vertical to overhanging. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
I have locally many near vertical exposed rock features of which even locals don't know if they are man-made or natural. In reality they are all man-made, but some date probably back to the Roman Empire. With other words, this discussion is sterile. On 10 Jan 2017 10:49 a.m., "Zecke" wrote: > > Artificial rock faces in quarries and open pit mines, called berms, are >> created due to blasting. The faces are typically inclined 60-70° with drops >> of max. a few tenth of meters. This fundamental difference might be best >> taken into account by using man_made=embankment for these. >> > > I have to contradict in one point. I know of a lot of former and present > quarries where the faces are inclined 90° and ten'ths of meters high. Maybe > this is not so much the point for open pit mines. But tagging should be > ready to cope with non-natural steep faces. I see no problem however in > using some man_made key for this. "embankment" might be misleading, > however. What about man_made=cliff for non-natural steep drops? > > The renderer then could decide whether to choose differentiating drawing. > (Most probably he won't do so). > > Cheers, > Carsten > > ___ > 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] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
Artificial rock faces in quarries and open pit mines, called berms, are created due to blasting. The faces are typically inclined 60-70° with drops of max. a few tenth of meters. This fundamental difference might be best taken into account by using man_made=embankment for these. I have to contradict in one point. I know of a lot of former and present quarries where the faces are inclined 90° and ten'ths of meters high. Maybe this is not so much the point for open pit mines. But tagging should be ready to cope with non-natural steep faces. I see no problem however in using some man_made key for this. "embankment" might be misleading, however. What about man_made=cliff for non-natural steep drops? The renderer then could decide whether to choose differentiating drawing. (Most probably he won't do so). Cheers, Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
> Am 10.01.2017 um 00:04 schrieb Tom Pfeifer : > > They consist of the remaining geological material, which is of natural origin. For the remaining exposed rock we use mainly natural=bare_rock. > > There is a geological cycle as well, with mountains moving up and down, > continents sink or lift up... > > I would not be so picky and allow the new cliff to be called natural, while I > associate other purposes with an embankment. Due to my professional background I have to be precise here ;) Steep natural rock faces are formed primarily by tectonic uplift and subsequent weathering and erosion or during the ice ages by glacial erosion. Artificial rock faces in quarries and open pit mines, called berms, are created due to blasting. The faces are typically inclined 60-70° with drops of max. a few tenth of meters. This fundamental difference might be best taken into account by using man_made=embankment for these. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On 09/01/2017 20:56, ksg wrote: Am 09.01.2017 um 21:23 schrieb ael : It is perfectly clear in the case of a disused quarry. It is still a quarry. But it is no longer in use. In a few cases it may have a new purpose, but it is still a quarry in any normal sense. No, if there there no more mining, exploitation or landfill activities, the former quarry is a geological outcrop at best. FWIW, the OED definition is quite careful on this point: quarry 1. a. A surface excavation from which stone for use in building and construction is or has been extracted by cutting, blasting, or other means; a place where the rock has been, or is being, removed to be used. -- Steve --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On 09.01.2017 22:56, ksg wrote: Am 09.01.2017 um 22:15 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: On 10-Jan-17 07:56 AM, ksg wrote: You might use man_made=embankment for them. Don’t use natural=cliff, as these features are not of natural origin. The 'natural' key is used for both 'natural' and 'unnatural' objects! For example 'wood' is used where the trees have been grown from manually collected seed in an artificial light, automatically provided watering with liquid food, within a temperature and humidity controlled environment, and then manually planted out. Another example is 'water' used in so many man made dammed areas. In general a cliff is more vertical and taller than an embankment. The comparison is IMHO misleading because the tree seedlings/growing trees are still natural organic matter. Water is of natural origin and part of the hydrological cycle, regardless if it forms a sea, a lake or is stored in a reservoir. In contrast the mining faces exist not by geological consent, they are artificial. They consist of the remaining geological material, which is of natural origin. There is a geological cycle as well, with mountains moving up and down, continents sink or lift up... I would not be so picky and allow the new cliff to be called natural, while I associate other purposes with an embankment. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
> Am 09.01.2017 um 22:15 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > On 10-Jan-17 07:56 AM, ksg wrote: >>> >> You might use man_made=embankment for them. Don’t use natural=cliff, as >> these features are not of natural origin. > > The 'natural' key is used for both 'natural' and 'unnatural' objects! > > For example 'wood' is used where the trees have been grown from manually > collected seed in an artificial light, automatically provided watering with > liquid food, within a temperature and humidity controlled environment, and > then manually planted out. > > Another example is 'water' used in so many man made dammed areas. > > In general a cliff is more vertical and taller than an embankment. The comparison is IMHO misleading because the tree seedlings/growing trees are still natural organic matter. Water is of natural origin and part of the hydrological cycle, regardless if it forms a sea, a lake or is stored in a reservoir. In contrast the mining faces exist not by geological consent, they are artificial. geow ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On 09.01.2017 21:23, ael wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 09.01.2017 13:15, ael wrote: Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it. I don't think that is a natural interpretation. It is perfectly clear in the case of a disused quarry. It is still a quarry. But it is no longer in use. In a few cases it may have a new purpose, but it is still a quarry in any normal sense. This is certainly not that black and white, and depends on perspective. When it is fully re-naturated and filled with water I would no longer call it a quarry. In the end, what would you want to render, the old black quarry or the new blue lake? Hammer icons on the lake? I think I tried disused:landuse=quarry, but as I recall it was then not rendered on the standard map. I am all against tagging for the renderer in principle, but when such major features are not shown, it is ridiculous and a hazard. Theses particular quarries have sheer faces some of which are not fenced off. If the quarry leaves cliffs you can map them, and the cliff is rendered. It's the same hazard as any natural cliff then. We all have long list of features that we would like it see rendered for various reasons, but the correctness of the database should have priority. Then you can always render your own map, showing these features correctly. man_made=bridge is rendered on the main carto map. If the bridge outline of a major bridge is not in the database, it's the mappers' fault, not the renderers'. Are you suggesting that I pollute the database with invented features? The bridge is not an invented feature, if it exists in reality. If you have the length of the bride from the old track, you can estimate the width, and add a tag like source=estimate. So the next mapper can run around with a GPS receiver and refine, and eventually we get an aerial image from winter with less leaves and can refine even more. That's how OSM works. I have mapped several of these bridges which are under thick tree cover There are some techniques to walk towards each corner from a distance to get better bearings. A bridge is a bridge and is a major feature regardless of whether it is still in use for its original purpose. Yes it is and therefore we are happy that the man_made tag is rendered in carto. Just map it as best as you can, describing the quality you achieved, and things will improve over time. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On 10-Jan-17 07:56 AM, ksg wrote: Am 09.01.2017 um 21:23 schrieb ael : On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it. +1 That’s what the life cycle prefix is intended for. I don't think that is a natural interpretation. It is perfectly clear in the case of a disused quarry. It is still a quarry. But it is no longer in use. In a few cases it may have a new purpose, but it is still a quarry in any normal sense. No, if there there no more mining, exploitation or landfill activities, the former quarry is a geological outcrop at best. I think I tried disused:landuse=quarry, but as I recall it was then not rendered on the standard map. I am all against tagging for the renderer in principle, but when such major features are not shown, it is ridiculous and a hazard. Theses particular quarries have sheer faces some of which are not fenced off. You might use man_made=embankment for them. Don’t use natural=cliff, as these features are not of natural origin. The 'natural' key is used for both 'natural' and 'unnatural' objects! For example 'wood' is used where the trees have been grown from manually collected seed in an artificial light, automatically provided watering with liquid food, within a temperature and humidity controlled environment, and then manually planted out. Another example is 'water' used in so many man made dammed areas. In general a cliff is more vertical and taller than an embankment. The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former. In the cases that I was examining, the current use is "disused_quarry“. I would opt for describing the subsequent use like recreation, natural, leisure etc. geow I would opt for the present use... recreation? If unused at present then the disused: etc would be practical. Possibly both past and present use can be tagged together. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
> Am 09.01.2017 um 21:23 schrieb ael : > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first >> saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it. +1 That’s what the life cycle prefix is intended for. > I don't think that is a natural interpretation. It is perfectly clear in > the case of a disused quarry. It is still a quarry. But it is no longer > in use. In a few cases it may have a new purpose, but it is still a > quarry in any normal sense. No, if there there no more mining, exploitation or landfill activities, the former quarry is a geological outcrop at best. > > I think I tried disused:landuse=quarry, but as I recall it was then not > rendered on the standard map. I am all against tagging for the renderer > in principle, but when such major features are not shown, it is > ridiculous and a hazard. Theses particular quarries have sheer faces > some of which are not fenced off. You might use man_made=embankment for them. Don’t use natural=cliff, as these features are not of natural origin. > >> The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former. > > In the cases that I was examining, the current use is "disused_quarry“. I would opt for describing the subsequent use like recreation, natural, leisure etc. geow ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 09.01.2017 13:15, ael wrote: > Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first > saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it. I don't think that is a natural interpretation. It is perfectly clear in the case of a disused quarry. It is still a quarry. But it is no longer in use. In a few cases it may have a new purpose, but it is still a quarry in any normal sense. I think I tried disused:landuse=quarry, but as I recall it was then not rendered on the standard map. I am all against tagging for the renderer in principle, but when such major features are not shown, it is ridiculous and a hazard. Theses particular quarries have sheer faces some of which are not fenced off. > The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former. In the cases that I was examining, the current use is "disused_quarry". > man_made=bridge is rendered on the main carto map. If the bridge outline of > a major bridge is not in the database, it's the mappers' fault, not the > renderers'. Are you suggesting that I pollute the database with invented features? I have mapped several of these bridges which are under thick tree cover using a pretty good gps unit. But the traces were not of sufficent quality under the trees to distiguish the two sides of the bridge which is some cases were no more than 2 m apart. I have always worried about spurious accuracy. Maybe I have to invent bridge outlines to fit in with the scheme above, but I feel very uncomfortable about that. A bridge is a bridge and is a major feature regardless of whether it is still in use for its original purpose. Sorry to be contrary, but I was advocating the use of OSM to non technical local councillors in Cornwall, and the fact that all these major bridges around the area were not rendered was just too embarrassing. So I dropped the idea until they were rendered on the "default" map. It would seem that I have to invent "outlines" to fix that which goes against the grain. I should add that I was not the orginal mapper for many of these disused bridges, so I am not the only one omitting bridge outlines. [Background: there are many old abandoned mining railways and tracks in Cornwall, many of which bridge roads. They need to appear on road maps. Some of them are also tourist attractions.] ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On 10-Jan-17 12:00 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 09.01.2017 13:15, ael wrote: This thread has reminded me that I have encountered problems with mapping disused quarries and surface mining. The quarries that I have in mind are major geographical features - they have not been filled in. I tried tagging them as landuse=quarry and disused=yes. If landuse really does mean current use of an area, that looks contradictory. Often such old quarries are now in use for We have lifecycle tagging for this purpose. Your former quarry is disused:landuse=quarry Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it. Often such old quarries are now in use for recreation, often the water filled part for watersports. So perhaps that is "land"use=recreation or landuse=quarry;recreation? It seem clear that there is a problem here. A (large) quarry is perhaps geographical rather than landuse? The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former. Thus it is landuse=recreation_ground or natural=water (as it has been re-naturated into a lake) Err I think it is both landuse=recreation_ground on the whole area (land + water) that is used for recreation And natural=water on the interior bit that has water. In the end is is just mankind changing landscape, as other geological processes do; such as the glacier in the ice age carved out a valley. I have the same problem with historic surface mining areas: these are major features on the landscape, often with very large excavations, and need recording/rendering, yet now are "just" moorland or have other uses. Rendering depends on your interest. You can render a map with disused features. You can convince the carto team to do so on the major map if you prove sufficient general interest. Again, I didn't think landuse=surface_mining + historic + disused worked and certainly didn't render. I am tempted to bring up the case of major bridges which are parts of abandoned railways not being rendered. While that really is a bug in the man_made=bridge is rendered on the main carto map. If the bridge outline of a major bridge is not in the database, it's the mappers' fault, not the renderers'. renderers, if we had some tag for major physical features that would be rendered regardless of any historic or disused tags. it would solve many such problems. Any suggestions: do we need new tags? No. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused: Usage: disused:landuse=* 616 of which quarry are the most frequent with 227, followed by 101 military. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=disused%3Alanduse ___ 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] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
On 09.01.2017 13:15, ael wrote: This thread has reminded me that I have encountered problems with mapping disused quarries and surface mining. The quarries that I have in mind are major geographical features - they have not been filled in. I tried tagging them as landuse=quarry and disused=yes. If landuse really does mean current use of an area, that looks contradictory. Often such old quarries are now in use for We have lifecycle tagging for this purpose. Your former quarry is disused:landuse=quarry Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it. Often such old quarries are now in use for recreation, often the water filled part for watersports. So perhaps that is "land"use=recreation or landuse=quarry;recreation? It seem clear that there is a problem here. A (large) quarry is perhaps geographical rather than landuse? The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former. Thus it is landuse=recreation_ground or natural=water (as it has been re-naturated into a lake) In the end is is just mankind changing landscape, as other geological processes do; such as the glacier in the ice age carved out a valley. I have the same problem with historic surface mining areas: these are major features on the landscape, often with very large excavations, and need recording/rendering, yet now are "just" moorland or have other uses. Rendering depends on your interest. You can render a map with disused features. You can convince the carto team to do so on the major map if you prove sufficient general interest. Again, I didn't think landuse=surface_mining + historic + disused worked and certainly didn't render. I am tempted to bring up the case of major bridges which are parts of abandoned railways not being rendered. While that really is a bug in the man_made=bridge is rendered on the main carto map. If the bridge outline of a major bridge is not in the database, it's the mappers' fault, not the renderers'. renderers, if we had some tag for major physical features that would be rendered regardless of any historic or disused tags. it would solve many such problems. Any suggestions: do we need new tags? No. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused: Usage: disused:landuse=* 616 of which quarry are the most frequent with 227, followed by 101 military. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=disused%3Alanduse ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
This thread has reminded me that I have encountered problems with mapping disused quarries and surface mining. The quarries that I have in mind are major geographical features - they have not been filled in. I tried tagging them as landuse=quarry and disused=yes. If landuse really does mean current use of an area, that looks contradictory. Often such old quarries are now in use for recreation, often the water filled part for watersports. So perhaps that is "land"use=recreation or landuse=quarry;recreation? It seem clear that there is a problem here. A (large) quarry is perhaps geographical rather than landuse? I have the same problem with historic surface mining areas: these are major features on the landscape, often with very large excavations, and need recording/rendering, yet now are "just" moorland or have other uses. Again, I didn't think landuse=surface_mining + historic + disused worked and certainly didn't render. I am tempted to bring up the case of major bridges which are parts of abandoned railways not being rendered. While that really is a bug in the renderers, if we had some tag for major physical features that would be rendered regardless of any historic or disused tags. it would solve many such problems. Any suggestions: do we need new tags? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
