Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: Unfortunately, I am no politician who can spend all of his time for campaigns. If you plan a mechanical edit exclusively in France, you should at least send a message to the local list (e.g. talk-fr@; even in English) to inform the local community about your intentions. It is not politics but basic courtesy. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On 12.07.2014 09:59, Christoph Hormann wrote: Based on this it would probably not be a good idea to mechanically re-tag these to natural=bare_rock but this is something that should be discussed at the appropriate place (i.e. in imports). In my opinion these areas would need manual reviewing and fixing before any meaningful tags can be applied. In many cases it might be easier to remap the area from scratch. This is really something that cannot be done immediately. So I gave up the plan for a straighforward data cleanup and essentially excluded it from my proposal. If there are no objections, I'll proceed to voting in a week or so. Here's the link again: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/natural%3Drock_cleanup -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On 12.07.2014 09:59, Christoph Hormann wrote: Most of these are from the Antarctica import [1] where they mostly comply with the definition quite well although in some part areas have a thin, patchy scree cover. The Corine natural=rock areas on the other hand are not natural=bare_rock, neither factually as you can easily check with a few examples nor by definition [2] where it is simply described as Scree, cliffs, rocks outcrops, including active erosion, rocks and reef flats situated above the high-water mark. I wouldn't have started this thread without checking a few examples. These areas are predominant in high regions of the Alps, the Pyrenees and of Corsica. They look rocky on areal images. The definition you cited conforms with natural=bare_rock, except for scree, which is natural=scree. Some of the areas could also be tagged as natural=fell. But at least natural=bare_rock wouldn't be any wronger than natural=rock. One difference between the Corine import and the Antartica import is that the former was done before the tag natural=bare_rock was invented, while the latter was done when it had already been approved. I suppose that the Corine import would have created natural=bare_rock areas if that tag had been around by that time. Based on this it would probably not be a good idea to mechanically re-tag these to natural=bare_rock but this is something that should be discussed at the appropriate place (i.e. in imports). In my opinion these areas would need manual reviewing and fixing before any meaningful tags can be applied. In many cases it might be easier to remap the area from scratch. If these need remapping, it might be better to refine the definition first, which is my primary goal anyway. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On 12.07.2014 08:25, malenki wrote: When a proposal just sits in a wiki and doesn't get spread actively by it's author on OSM channels (forums, mailing lists) it doesn't get much attention. Even /when/ it is spread a lot of people (I included) often prefer to let it be. Unfortunately, I am no politician who can spend all of his time for campaigns. The whole proposal is imho one of a mechanical edit. The proposal is about refining a tag definition in the wiki. I feared that the proposal could be voted down with respect to existing data not conforming to the new definition. That's why I needed to dig into that data issue. It's kind of a chicken-egg dilemma. You cannot get a proposal approved when existing data is dubious, and you cannot get a data cleanup accepted when the definition in the wiki is dubious. As a result, we stay with rotten definitions and rotten data for all time going. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On Sunday 13 July 2014, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: The Corine natural=rock areas on the other hand are not natural=bare_rock, neither factually as you can easily check with a few examples nor by definition [2] where it is simply described as Scree, cliffs, rocks outcrops, including active erosion, rocks and reef flats situated above the high-water mark. I wouldn't have started this thread without checking a few examples. These areas are predominant in high regions of the Alps, the Pyrenees and of Corsica. They look rocky on areal images. The definition you cited conforms with natural=bare_rock, except for scree, which is natural=scree. Some of the areas could also be tagged as natural=fell. But at least natural=bare_rock wouldn't be any wronger than natural=rock. Replacing one wrong with another wrong does not make it right. ;-) But even worse this would dilute the meaning of natural=bare_rock. The natural=rock tag is not used anywhere else on larger polygons so there is fairly little harm in having these in the database. But if you are worried about this retag them with some specific tag like corine=3.3.2. It might appear if you do not look too closely as if some of the areas tagged natural=rock in France are indeed mostly bare bedrock but as said overall they mostly are a mixture of all kinds of stuff from bedrock to mud with mostly one thing in common, that is they are largely lacking vegetation. natural=bare_rock OTOH is predominantly exposed bedrock The fairly typical landscape in both Pyrenees and Corsica of rocky terrain with scattered trees, scrubs and grass, like: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:France_Pyr%C3%A9n%C3%A9es_Lac_N%C3%A8re_%28Vall%C3%A9e_de_Bar%C3%A8ges%29.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Port_du_Marcadau_-_versant_espagnol.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Etang_de_caraussan_aerien.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Cambal%C3%A8s.jpg does not qualify as natural=bare_rock in total even if locally there is exposed bedrock of course. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 00:27:03 +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: My proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/natural%3Drock_cleanup has been in RFC state for a year, and the only comment from other users was a personal message concerning the licence of my photos. When a proposal just sits in a wiki and doesn't get spread actively by it's author on OSM channels (forums, mailing lists) it doesn't get much attention. Even /when/ it is spread a lot of people (I included) often prefer to let it be. So it seems that there are no objections, and that we should proceed to voting. However, I feel uncomfortable about the cleanup chapter, because it's about nebulous subsequent edits on an unknown amount of data. Therefore I would like to make some cleanups beforehand, and then see what is left. [copied some cited stuff from the end of the msg here] There are 1216 objects to change. Is this subject to the mechanical edit policy? If so, where should it be discussed? What user account shall be used? Are there any reasons not to do it at all? The whole proposal is imho one of a mechanical edit. How to do one is documented here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy I would like to start with data from the French Corine Land Cover import, because *all* the natural=rock generated by that import actually mean natural=bare_rock. For changing a french import you should discuss this with the french community. OT remark: As all Corine data I saw so far it is quite imprecise. Of course the ways cover mostly the landuse they are described to cover, but (e.g. as for woods) they often cover meadows and farmlands, too. This kind if imports are good to get a country full of landuse but not precise data. And enhancing MPs with 150 km outer ways is not what all mappers do enjoy much. Renaming these tags cannot do any harm, because an ambiguous tag is replaced which an anambiguous and approved tag which perfectly matches the intended meaning. For the proposal itself I don't have much objections. IIRC I mapped some natural=rock on nodes which should have been natural=stone but due to my German roots a stone is something I can pick up from the ground – unlike a rock. :) hth Thomas ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On Saturday 12 July 2014, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: That's how natural=bare_rock is defined (areas made principally or mostly of solid rock), analogous to natural=water/sand/grass/glacier/etc. all of which are about the surface. The bare_rock proposal was approved 2 years ago and there are 64 566 occurrences by now. Most of these are from the Antarctica import [1] where they mostly comply with the definition quite well although in some part areas have a thin, patchy scree cover. The Corine natural=rock areas on the other hand are not natural=bare_rock, neither factually as you can easily check with a few examples nor by definition [2] where it is simply described as Scree, cliffs, rocks outcrops, including active erosion, rocks and reef flats situated above the high-water mark. Based on this it would probably not be a good idea to mechanically re-tag these to natural=bare_rock but this is something that should be discussed at the appropriate place (i.e. in imports). In my opinion these areas would need manual reviewing and fixing before any meaningful tags can be applied. In many cases it might be easier to remap the area from scratch. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Antarctic_Digital_Database [2] http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/land_cover.pdf -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
Am 12/lug/2014 um 03:47 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: natural=water/sand/grass/glacier/etc. all of which are about the surface I don't like grass and sand either, neither water but that is probably too widely used. Glacier on the other hand is fine, please note that the tag is not natural=ice which would be analogous to bare_rock cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
My proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/natural%3Drock_cleanup has been in RFC state for a year, and the only comment from other users was a personal message concerning the licence of my photos. So it seems that there are no objections, and that we should proceed to voting. However, I feel uncomfortable about the cleanup chapter, because it's about nebulous subsequent edits on an unknown amount of data. Therefore I would like to make some cleanups beforehand, and then see what is left. I would like to start with data from the French Corine Land Cover import, because *all* the natural=rock generated by that import actually mean natural=bare_rock. Renaming these tags cannot do any harm, because an ambiguous tag is replaced which an anambiguous and approved tag which perfectly matches the intended meaning. In detail, it's about: - replacing natural=rock with natural=bare_rock - for all areas (ways, MPs) with source=Union européenne - SOeS, CORINE Land Cover, 2006. The data can be retrieved with: http://overpass-api.de/api/xapi?*[natural=rock][source=Union europ\xc3\xa9enne - SOeS, CORINE Land Cover, 2006.] There are 1216 objects to change. Is this subject to the mechanical edit policy? If so, where should it be discussed? What user account shall be used? Are there any reasons not to do it at all? -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
Am 12/lug/2014 um 00:27 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: My proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/natural%3Drock_cleanup has been in RFC state for a year Maybe a whole year is a bit long... 3 comments: - you write natural=bare_rock is about rock as the surface material, so I think this would better fit in the keys surface or landcover - the distinction between stone and rock as the latter being firmly attached to the bedrock might often be difficult to verify on the ground -I don't like that rock can mean one rock or a group of rocks with at least one of them attached. If we are to bring in more detail, why not distinguish between one rock and a group of rocks? And shouldn't from the group of rocks those that are not firmly attached to the ground be tagged stone according to your proposal and hence left out if the rock-tag? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On 12.07.2014 01:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 12/lug/2014 um 00:27 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: My proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/natural%3Drock_cleanup has been in RFC state for a year Maybe a whole year is a bit long... 3 comments: - you write natural=bare_rock is about rock as the surface material, so I think this would better fit in the keys surface or landcover That's how natural=bare_rock is defined (areas made principally or mostly of solid rock), analogous to natural=water/sand/grass/glacier/etc. all of which are about the surface. The bare_rock proposal was approved 2 years ago and there are 64 566 occurrences by now. - the distinction between stone and rock as the latter being firmly attached to the bedrock might often be difficult to verify on the ground When in doubt, tag what seems most certain. That's natural=rock in most cases. Estimations and guesses are daily business in mapping. Like guessing tracktypes and landuses when mapping from arial images. -I don't like that rock can mean one rock or a group of rocks with at least one of them attached. If we are to bring in more detail, why not distinguish between one rock and a group of rocks? See the last picture in my proposal. Is it one rock or two? You cannot tell, because there are firmly attached to each other. If you map 2 rocks, how do you tag the name? The name Franzosenstein belongs to the whole rock formation alltogether. There's also a formation of 7 rocks called 7 Kurfürsten. It would be highly impractical to map them separately. This kind of micro mapping should be possible, but not obligatory. And shouldn't from the group of rocks those that are not firmly attached to the ground be tagged stone according to your proposal and hence left out if the rock-tag? You surely know the German term Wackelsteine. A wackelstein consists of one bottom rock connected to the ground, and one or more (more = Doppelwackelstein) rocks on top. They are commonly considered one single rock formation, and therefore it should be one single object in OSM as well. I use to map them as natural=rock, not stone, because the formation as a whole is connected to the ground. According to its wiki page, natural=stone is a single notable freestanding rock. This obviously does not apply to wackelsteins, because they are neither single nor freestanding. natural=stone is mainly intended for erratics, which are almost never accompanied by rocks connected to the ground. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
