Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 25.03.2016 um 13:29 schrieb Alexander Matheisen 
> :
> 
> And the German version of this article (you can translate it with
> Google Translator) says that a secondary road often corresponds to a
> certrain legal designation, but it does not have to.


although this is a peripheral discussion here, I like to point out that "legal 
designation" has more dimensions to it than the average driver would maybe 
assume: the German signposted classification of Bundesstraße, Landstraße, 
Kreisstraße is about the operator, it is not the actual classification that 
authorities use to plan and manage the road network. They use planning 
guidelines with different classes, which are not directly visible to the user 
of a road. A good starting point for the German situation is maybe here: 
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richtlinien_für_integrierte_Netzgestaltung
(I believe the actual guideline is not available for free), and I guess other 
countries will likely have similar standards that go beyond the system that is 
visible from signs on the road.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 16:36 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen
>  wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> > > On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
> > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is
> > > > subjective,
> > > > but there is no alternative.
> > > 
> > > Poppycock.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> For the reason I gave in an earlier post: it is often an objective,
> verifiable legal designation.

No, see my recent post: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/taggi
ng/2016-March/028960.html.

> > > > It is not possible to calculate the importance
> > > > of a station just by some values.
> > > 
> > > How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?
> > 
> > I do not use any calculation based on measures?! My proposal (seems
> > that you did not read it) uses a list of characteristic criterias
> > for
> > each category.
> 
> You seem to mean different things by:

> Please define your terms.

Sorry, I am no native English speaker, so sometimes I may have problems
to find the right term for my ideas.

> * values
> * measures

For me these terms are almost equal: Numeric values which are neutral
facts and a measurable (e.g. by counting things). For example the
number of passengers, population, etc.

> * characteristic criterias [sic]

Oh, that is a strange term. What I meant was "characteristic
properties". A list of properties that are typical and representative
for objects of a category. An object must not have all of these
properties; these properties help the mapper to decide which category
is the most appropriate for an object.

Examples: "Stations of category xyz typically are big traffic hubs
served by highspeed trains" or "Typically, these controlled-access
highways have a minimum of two lanes in each direction that are
separated by a barrier." from 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway.

> > The scheme I propose can be compared to the place=* scheme.
> 
> > This definition also mentions "important", so where is the
> > difference
> > to the importance proposal?
> 
> The former does not try to quantify importance. It uses the term
> descriptively in the page about the key, not as the key.

So if I understand you right, your main point of critique only concerns
the name of the key? What about tagging stations with e.g.
station_range=interregional/regional/local/suburban/...?

> > > > I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
> > > > example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is
> > > > difficult
> > > > to
> > > > measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other
> > > > mappers.
> > > 
> > > Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
> > > checked* by other mappers.
> > 
> > If you think that the number of passengers or trains is easy to map
> > in
> > a larger scale, then please describe how you would map these
> > values.
> 
> Please answer my question.

As I described I would not use information such as number of
passengers, etc. but just a single tag that classifies a station.

> > If you just calculate the importance from a list of measurable
> > values,
> > you may get good results with a complex algorithm that recognizes
> > many
> > aspects. But then it is very difficult for a mapper to understand
> > why
> > station A was ranked more important than station B, and it is also
> > difficult to influence the ranking if it is wrong. That is what I
> > mean
> > with transparency.
> 
> So long as the algorithm is published, it would be entirely
> transparent.

Yes and no.

Of course if is transparent in the way that it is possible to
understand how this ranking algorithm works and what is returned.

But still intransparent is the result itself of this algorithm. Think
of an algorithm that calculates the importance by recognizing
passengers per day, number of platforms and number of trains. This
algorithm will combines these values and return a numeric value. And
this numeric value is not transparent because for itself it does not
contain any information. It is just a relative information. Compared
with the values of other stations it is possible to say that station A
is more important than station B.

But with a tag like importance=* you have a human-readable information
about the importance of a station.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen
 wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
>> On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is
>> > subjective,
>> > but there is no alternative.
>>
>> Poppycock.
>
> Why?

For the reason I gave in an earlier post: it is often an objective,
verifiable legal designation.

>> > It is not possible to calculate the importance
>> > of a station just by some values.
>>
>> How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?
>
> I do not use any calculation based on measures?! My proposal (seems
> that you did not read it) uses a list of characteristic criterias for
> each category.

You seem to mean different things by:

* values
* measures
* characteristic criterias [sic]

Please define your terms.


> The scheme I propose can be compared to the place=* scheme.

> This definition also mentions "important", so where is the difference
> to the importance proposal?

The former does not try to quantify importance. It uses the term
descriptively in the page about the key, not as the key.

> And why is importance=* so problematic from
> the view of some mappers, while we are also using a similar scheme for
> places?

We are not; and for the reason given earlier in this thread.

>> > I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
>> > example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult
>> > to
>> > measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other
>> > mappers.
>>
>> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
>> checked* by other mappers.
>
> If you think that the number of passengers or trains is easy to map in
> a larger scale, then please describe how you would map these values.

Please answer my question.

>> > I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
>> > algorithm might be very intransparent.
>>
>> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more
>> transparent*.
>
> As I said, I do not use any calculation based on measures.

See above regarding your terms.

> My proposal
> requires that a mapper classifies a station to one station category. It
> is more transparent because everyone can see that a station is tagged
> with a certain category. So a user easily understands why e.g. a
> station is rendered in a certain zoom level or was recognized as more
> important in the ranking of search results.

Then the tag would be transparent, but not the means used to arrive at it.

> If you just calculate the importance from a list of measurable values,
> you may get good results with a complex algorithm that recognizes many
> aspects. But then it is very difficult for a mapper to understand why
> station A was ranked more important than station B, and it is also
> difficult to influence the ranking if it is wrong. That is what I mean
> with transparency.

So long as the algorithm is published, it would be entirely transparent.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Montag, den 21.03.2016, 23:26 +0100 schrieb Daniel Koć:
> Interesting idea worth testing, IMO. However I suspect in practice
> there 
> will be lot of problems to make it really fly.
> 
> Let's look at the similar simple idea (with scoring based on city
> type 
> and population) used to render city labels in osm-carto in a more
> sane 
> way:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1461
> 
> Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells
> me 
> just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you
> depict 
> it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city ranking
> we 
> needed.

+1

> Maybe the key name should not be "importance" - I just took an 
> existing/proposed scheme with some nice defined values and tried to 
> extend its scope outside just the railways. While for example "range"
> may be good for transportation, it wouldn't work with peaks, of
> course.

I am open for other key names. range sounds good and might be a might
be a better word for this key.

On the other hand, the exact name of the key is not that important. It
is just a kind of placeholder and a detailled definition should be
delivered in the wiki or in tagging presets.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:20 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 18 March 2016 at 22:15, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> > I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable
> > concept
> > but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable
> > and
> > suitable for OSM. Just take the timetable or go out and stay one
> > day on
> > the platforms, count and note down all stopping trains.
> 
> That would allow you to verify (in a very loose sense) the number of
> trains; not the importance of the station.

Right, this does not indicate the importance. But why do you propose to
map such values, but at the same time say that these values do not
indicate the importance?

> > In addition,
> > more important stations often have better/more facilities for
> > passengerts like a ticket shop (smaller ones only have vending
> > machines), a toilet, backeries, fast food stores, waiting rooms,
> > etc.
> 
> That would, allow you to verify a list of facilities, not the
> importance of the station.

Same...

> > If OSM would free of any importance-like tags, we would not have
> > the
> > highway=* tag as we have it now. Tagging is highway=primary vs.
> > secondary, secondary vs. tertiary, tertiary vs. unclassified is
> > often a
> > question of importance, not only width, paving and lane count.
> 
> Tagging highways as "primary" or "secondary" is often a matter of
> verifiable legal designation.

No, not really. The definition on 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dsecondary does not say
anything about legal designation.

And the German version of this article (you can translate it with
Google Translator) says that a secondary road often corresponds to a
certrain legal designation, but it does not have to. A mapper can also
tag it as primary or tertiary if that describes the type of street
better.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
>  wrote:
> 
> > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is
> > subjective,
> > but there is no alternative.
> 
> Poppycock.

Why?

> > As the person who created that station importance draft, I will
> > focus
> > on stations, but for other features like mountain peaks the
> > situation
> > should be similar: It is not possible to calculate the importance
> > of a
> > station just by some values.
> 
> How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?

I do not use any calculation based on measures?! My proposal (seems
that you did not read it) uses a list of characteristic criterias for
each category.

The scheme I propose can be compared to the place=* scheme. The tagging
of places is also a kind of importance ranking. According to the wiki
it is not based on population and it can be decided by the user to get
better results:

"By way of example, the charter city of Alameda in California
 (population 76,000) is tagged as a town, due to its proximity to the 
much larger and better known cities of San Francisco (populations 
805,000) and Oakland (population 309,000)." (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dcity)

Also see this description taken from 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dtown:

"Use place=town to identify an important urban centre that is larger
than a place=village, smaller than a place=city, and not a
place=suburb. Towns normally have a good range of shops and facilities
which are used by people from nearby villages."

This definition also mentions "important", so where is the difference
to the importance proposal? And why is importance=* so problematic from
the view of some mappers, while we are also using a similar scheme for
places?

> > I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
> > example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult
> > to
> > measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other
> > mappers.
> 
> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
> checked* by other mappers.

If you think that the number of passengers or trains is easy to map in
a larger scale, then please describe how you would map these values.

For example see the number of passengers. In most cases railroad
companies do not publish these information except for some big station.
That means that a mapper would have to go to the station, stand near
the entrance and count how many people go in and out. For larger
stations you need more than one mapper to count this.

And also if you are able to count the number of passengers, there are
more problems: This value depends on time, so it would be necessary to
do this more than once at different times, different days, etc. to
calculate an average value. Do you think this is praticable?

Another suggestion here was the number of trains. This can be done more
easily, and if timetable information in standard formats are available,
this value can be collected automatically. But the problem is, that
this value does not indicate the importance of a station. A suburb
station may have trains departing every 2 minutes while a central
station may have trains departing every 10 minutes. But that does not
indicate that the suburb station is more important.

> > I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
> > algorithm might be very intransparent.
> 
> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more
> transparent*.

As I said, I do not use any calculation based on measures. My proposal
requires that a mapper classifies a station to one station category. It
is more transparent because everyone can see that a station is tagged
with a certain category. So a user easily understands why e.g. a
station is rendered in a certain zoom level or was recognized as more
important in the ranking of search results.

If you just calculate the importance from a list of measurable values,
you may get good results with a complex algorithm that recognizes many
aspects. But then it is very difficult for a mapper to understand why
station A was ranked more important than station B, and it is also
difficult to influence the ranking if it is wrong. That is what I mean
with transparency.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 21 March 2016 at 22:26, Daniel Koć  wrote:

> Using Wikidata as a base for peaks scoring is worse than basing it on
> population, because it's less universal and relies on one particular
> website, but I don't reject it at this moment.

Actually, counting the links to other Wikimedia sites from Wikidata
relies on over 300 other websites (290 Wikipedias, a dozen or more
sister projects)

> Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and is
> worth using this way or another to indicate importance.

Good luck getting a train to another country from Birmingham
International railway station.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
 wrote:

> If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is subjective,
> but there is no alternative.

Poppycock.

> As the person who created that station importance draft, I will focus
> on stations, but for other features like mountain peaks the situation
> should be similar: It is not possible to calculate the importance of a
> station just by some values.

How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?

> I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
> example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult to
> measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other mappers.

Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
checked* by other mappers.

> I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
> algorithm might be very intransparent.

Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more transparent*.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 18 March 2016 at 22:15, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept
> but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable and
> suitable for OSM. Just take the timetable or go out and stay one day on
> the platforms, count and note down all stopping trains.

That would allow you to verify (in a very loose sense) the number of
trains; not the importance of the station.

> In addition,
> more important stations often have better/more facilities for
> passengerts like a ticket shop (smaller ones only have vending
> machines), a toilet, backeries, fast food stores, waiting rooms, etc.

That would, allow you to verify a list of facilities, not the
importance of the station.

> If OSM would free of any importance-like tags, we would not have the
> highway=* tag as we have it now. Tagging is highway=primary vs.
> secondary, secondary vs. tertiary, tertiary vs. unclassified is often a
> question of importance, not only width, paving and lane count.

Tagging highways as "primary" or "secondary" is often a matter of
verifiable legal designation.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-23 11:40 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :

> NumberOfArticles*factorA + population*factorP + lengthOfArticles*factorL +
> isCapital*factorCP + isVillage*factorV + isTown*factorT + isCity*factorC =
> weightOfPlace
>
> I'm not a mathematician, but I think that should work. Play with those
> factors and make a list. New York or some mega popular city like that would
> probably come on top, and just see which cities come on top of which. If
> you don't like the outcome, change some factors a bit.
>
> In your example Frankfurt has more people and more articles. It would
> definitely get on top of Wiesbaden.
>


this depends how important you factor the "isCapital" part of it. Wiesbaden
is a capital, Frankfurt isn't.



>
> Listing sources is not very indicative of importance, it just says how
> diligent the writer of the article is.
>



agreed


Another (less known example) to finetune your algorithm:
Sindelfingen, 43 articles, 62.000 population, capital=8
Böblingen, 40 articles, 47.000 population, capital=6
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=48.6940&mlon=9.0067#map=13/48.6941/9.0066

I'm not sure which one I'd see as more important, but likely Böblingen
because of it's administrative status.



Another example: Gelsenkirchen and Bottrop and Herne (and some more cities
in the Ruhr area, but I chose those because Bottrop and Herne currently win
over Gelsenkirchen in osm/carto).
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/240052693#map=9/51.5062/7.2771
Gelsenkirchen, 72 articles, 258.000 population, capital=6
Bottrop, 61 articles, 116.000 population, capital=6
Herne, 56 articles, 155.000 population, capital=6

Closeby there are also
Wattenscheid, 11 articles, 72.000 population, capital=9 (is now a district
of Bochum, but had rights like a town before 1407 and was part of the Hanse
from 1554)
Bochum, 74 articles, 362.000 population, capital=6
Essen, 96 articles, 574.000 population, capital=6

Interestingly, in this quite dense area, there are a lot of cities in a
similar size range and with equal administrative status (de:"kreisfreie
Stadt", independent cities at admin level 6, in this case within an
admin_level=5 entity (de: Regierungsbezirk). The amount of available
languages in WP seems to correlate well with the population numbers.


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Janko Mihelić]

sri, 23. ožu 2016. u 11:22 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
> What about Frankfurt (am Main) and Wiesbaden?
> Frankfurt has a population of 700.000 and a wikipedia page in 156
> languages, the German article lists 107 sources, it has no important
> political-administrative function
> Wiesbaden has a population of 280.000 and a wp page in 121 languages, the
> German article lists 122 sources, it is the capital of a German land
> (Hessen)
> both articles are very long (without counting they look similarily long)
> and have an excellence predicate.
>
>
There has to be a lot of heuristics involved here. I think the number of
articles in different languages and population should be the top factors
with cities. Just add different weights to those factors, play a bit, and
see what comes out.

NumberOfArticles*factorA + population*factorP + lengthOfArticles*factorL +
isCapital*factorCP + isVillage*factorV + isTown*factorT + isCity*factorC =
weightOfPlace

I'm not a mathematician, but I think that should work. Play with those
factors and make a list. New York or some mega popular city like that would
probably come on top, and just see which cities come on top of which. If
you don't like the outcome, change some factors a bit.

In your example Frankfurt has more people and more articles. It would
definitely get on top of Wiesbaden.

Listing sources is not very indicative of importance, it just says how
diligent the writer of the article is.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-23 11:20 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> What about Frankfurt (am Main) and Wiesbaden?
> Frankfurt has a population of 700.000 and a wikipedia page in 156
> languages, the German article lists 107 sources, it has no important
> political-administrative function
>


well, actually it has an important political administrative function: it is
seat of the ECB (but how would mapnik understand this?).

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-22 17:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :

> For example, Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, has a population of 25
> 000 and 110 articles. A nearby city, Beit Shemesh, has a population of 100
> 000 and 32 articles. I think that's a great way to decide which city to
> display on lower zooms. Even better, you could add the length of text in
> all articles. An important city will almost always have more text than a
> less important one. And in the end, add population into the mix for good
> measure.



What about Frankfurt (am Main) and Wiesbaden?
Frankfurt has a population of 700.000 and a wikipedia page in 156
languages, the German article lists 107 sources, it has no important
political-administrative function
Wiesbaden has a population of 280.000 and a wp page in 121 languages, the
German article lists 122 sources, it is the capital of a German land
(Hessen)
both articles are very long (without counting they look similarily long)
and have an excellence predicate.

On a personal judgement I'd definitely give Frankfurt much more importance
(important financial place, important airport, historically important,
culturally important)
Frankfurt is also the main city of a metropolitan region with 5.8 M
population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Rhine-Main (but you
can't find this information in OSM)

Looking at the wikidata classes the importance is not completely clear:

Wiesbaden:
big city
location with spa
residenz
state capital in Germany
urban district of Germany
major regional center within the scope of Hesse


Frankfurt:
big city
Free imperial city (until 19th century)
college town
financial centre
urban district of Germany
Europastadt

Interestingly, if you look at the sister cities, it becomes very clear that
both play in completely different leagues (but you have to have an idea
about these sister cities to make this judgement).

In this case, which is likely easy for humans to decide, it looks quite
difficult for a computer to see the bigger importance of Frankfurt (yes,
the population is an indication, but political administrative importance
plays in favor of Wiesbaden).

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Janko Mihelić]

Elements with only one or two wikipedia articles should probably ignore
their "wikipedia weight". There is always some group of enthusiasts that
will make articles about anything. But only in their own language and maybe
one more.

My croatian wikipedia has articles about hundreds of grass hockey players
around the world. And I've never seen the sport on TV here.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 20:27 +0100, Alexander Matheisen wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 22.03.2016, 17:41 + schrieb Philip Barnes:
> > 
> >  
> > Every railway station seems to have a wikipedia page, even if is
> > says
> > no more than can be deduced by looking at it on OSM.
> No, only some important stations have own wikipedia pages. For
> example
> see the Tauern railway in Austria, an important north-south route
> through the Alps. It is used by many freight trains and EuroCity long
> distance trains.
> 
> But when you have a look at either the German article (
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauernbahn) or the English article (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauern_Railway), you will see that no
> station on this line has an own article, although some stations are
> served by EuroCity trains.
> 
> 
I suppose it depends on the country, and whilst I haven't checked every
station in the UK, it does appear each station has its own page and is
linked to the next by the panel at the bottom.

For example my local station, which consists of 2 platforms each with a
"bus shelter" and a ticket machine. It is hardly an important station,
unless it is your local station and certainly not notable as I though
wikipedia articles were supposed to be. Actually the ticket machine
isn't mentioned in wikipedia but it is mapped on OSM.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Dienstag, den 22.03.2016, 17:41 + schrieb Philip Barnes:
> On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 16:29 +, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:28 Daniel Koć  napisao je:
> > > 
> > > Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm
> > > tells
> > > me
> > > just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you
> > > depict
> > > it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city
> > > ranking
> > > we
> > > needed.
> > I wasn't talking about raw data like population. I was talking
> > about
> > the number of articles about cities. That means number of articles
> > in
> > different languages. I think it's a great way to see what the crowd
> > from around the world thinks is important.
> > 
> > For example, Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, has a population
> > of
> > 25 000 and 110 articles. A nearby city, Beit Shemesh, has a
> > population of 100 000 and 32 articles. I think that's a great way
> > to
> > decide which city to display on lower zooms. Even better, you could
> > add the length of text in all articles. An important city will
> > almost
> > always have more text than a less important one. And in the end,
> > add
> > population into the mix for good measure.
> > 
> > The same thing about peaks.
> > 
> > Transportation is probably not as present in Wikipedia, but I'm
> > sure
> > all the important airports have their articles.
> >  
> Every railway station seems to have a wikipedia page, even if is says
> no more than can be deduced by looking at it on OSM.

No, only some important stations have own wikipedia pages. For example
see the Tauern railway in Austria, an important north-south route
through the Alps. It is used by many freight trains and EuroCity long
distance trains.

But when you have a look at either the German article (
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauernbahn) or the English article (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauern_Railway), you will see that no
station on this line has an own article, although some stations are
served by EuroCity trains.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and
> is worth using this way or another to indicate importance.
> International/domestic/local fares are rather useful and popular
> description of importance level for railway (and bus!) stations and with
> military/private distinction I guess it could also work with the airports.
>
In the U.S. there is nothing preventing an airport operator from inserting
the word "International" (or anything else) into their name for marketing
purposes. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does designate
certain airports as "international" but this designation has to do with the
rules for accepting international flights and this doesn't dictate how the
airport is named. International flights into FAA non-international airports
have to request permission from the government, while such flights into an
FAA "international" airport merely need to provide notice. There are a
number of inconsequential airports that are designated by the FAA as
"international", e.g. [1]

Mike
[1]  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron_Fulton_International_Airport
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 16:29 +, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:28 Daniel Koć  napisao je:
> > 
> > Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells
> > me
> > just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you
> > depict
> > it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city ranking
> > we
> > needed.
> I wasn't talking about raw data like population. I was talking about
> the number of articles about cities. That means number of articles in
> different languages. I think it's a great way to see what the crowd
> from around the world thinks is important.
> 
> For example, Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, has a population of
> 25 000 and 110 articles. A nearby city, Beit Shemesh, has a
> population of 100 000 and 32 articles. I think that's a great way to
> decide which city to display on lower zooms. Even better, you could
> add the length of text in all articles. An important city will almost
> always have more text than a less important one. And in the end, add
> population into the mix for good measure.
> 
> The same thing about peaks.
> 
> Transportation is probably not as present in Wikipedia, but I'm sure
> all the important airports have their articles.
>  
Every railway station seems to have a wikipedia page, even if is says
no more than can be deduced by looking at it on OSM.
Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Janko Mihelić]

pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:28 Daniel Koć  napisao je:

>
> Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells me
> just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you depict
> it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city ranking we
> needed.
>

I wasn't talking about raw data like population. I was talking about the
number of articles about cities. That means number of articles in different
languages. I think it's a great way to see what the crowd from around the
world thinks is important.

For example, Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, has a population of 25
000 and 110 articles. A nearby city, Beit Shemesh, has a population of 100
000 and 32 articles. I think that's a great way to decide which city to
display on lower zooms. Even better, you could add the length of text in
all articles. An important city will almost always have more text than a
less important one. And in the end, add population into the mix for good
measure.

The same thing about peaks.

Transportation is probably not as present in Wikipedia, but I'm sure all
the important airports have their articles.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Janko Mihelić]

pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:38 johnw  napisao je:

>
> this might be a good solution for ordering the mountains at a national or
> international level.
>
> but It doesn’t work very well (probably at all) for provincial level,
> unless all mountains except for the ones on the wikidata get rendered in at
> Z15.
>
>
Of course Wikidata wouldn't be the only parameter, it would just help in
extreme cases. For example, only peaks with a lot of articles would be
rendered under zoom 6 (mega popular ones like Mount Everest (167 articles),
Mount Fuji (87), and so on).

When you get over zoom 11, ele=* tag would start being more important. And
over zoom 16, all peaks would be rendered. Something like that.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On 3/22/16, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis  je napisao:
>
>>
>> This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have
>> ever dealt with as an OSM mapper.
>>
>
> You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just
> look at the number of articles about each peak, and render them according
> to that. More articles=rendered at lower zooms. Problem solved, and you
> don't have to put vague tags in OSM.

I'd like to note that Nominatim already uses Wikipedia via the
wikipedia=* tags as an indicator of relevance or importance (by
counting Wikipedia article links) and there is a proposal to also
eventually include Wikidata too:
https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/299

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[johnw]

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just 
> look at the number of articles about each peak, and render them according to 
> that. More articles=rendered at lower zooms. Problem solved, and you don't 
> have to put vague tags in OSM. 


this might be a good solution for ordering the mountains at a national or 
international level. 

but It doesn’t work very well (probably at all) for provincial level, unless 
all mountains except for the ones on the wikidata get rendered in at Z15. 

This means we have to have all regionally important mountains in wikidata. 

On the lower end, we also need something for filtering out lumps - the little 
named hills or tiny sub-peaks.

Where I Lived in San Diego, the flat places all had names (mesas, bluffs, etc), 
and the large mountains all had names - but it was easy to deal with, as they 
were all rather large. 

Here in rural Japan, the mountains are a never-ending collection of steep, 
jagged, odd shaped hills and little tiny lumps rising from the long sloping 
sides of dead volcanos (they are the tops of buried mountains).  and every 
lump, every bump, and every collection of bumps has a name. I have seen the 
local hand drawn map for my area, and the the level of naming detail is a 
magnitude greater than what I saw in the US. 

it’s like what if every road lane had a name, and then the road had a different 
name. it is just so many names for such tiny things - but OSM only supported 
naming roads. 


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 21.03.2016 21:32, Janko Mihelić napisał(a):

ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis  je napisao:


This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I
have ever dealt with as an OSM mapper.


You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata.
Just look at the number of articles about each peak, and render them
according to that. More articles=rendered at lower zooms. Problem
solved, and you don't have to put vague tags in OSM.


1.

Interesting idea worth testing, IMO. However I suspect in practice there 
will be lot of problems to make it really fly.


Let's look at the similar simple idea (with scoring based on city type 
and population) used to render city labels in osm-carto in a more sane 
way:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1461

Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells me 
just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you depict 
it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city ranking we 
needed.


2.

We have a big problem with peaks. Once I have tried to add peak subtypes 
(with mountain peak as default for backward compatibility), but in 
general it was rejected and is rarely used (see 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/peak#values - most of them are 
strange service=peak+peak=school for some bus routes in Germany, 
anyway). Elevation alone may be not the only important thing - relative 
height can be also relevant property. And, as John points out, there are 
also some "soft" cultural references which make some peaks much more 
interesting than other, even similar in the physical sense.


Using Wikidata as a base for peaks scoring is worse than basing it on 
population, because it's less universal and relies on one particular 
website, but I don't reject it at this moment.


3.

Let's not forget about transportation. I have read discussion about 
problems, especially about small near-border train stations (being, 
well, "international") and stations in USA (most of them are national, 
despite the country occupies about half the continent). I don't have a 
solution for it yet, but we could craft the definition to catch such 
corner cases, if they are rare enough.


Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and 
is worth using this way or another to indicate importance. 
International/domestic/local fares are rather useful and popular 
description of importance level for railway (and bus!) stations and with 
military/private distinction I guess it could also work with the 
airports.


Maybe the key name should not be "importance" - I just took an 
existing/proposed scheme with some nice defined values and tried to 
extend its scope outside just the railways. While for example "range" 
may be good for transportation, it wouldn't work with peaks, of course.


--
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Janko Mihelić]

ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis  je napisao:

>
> This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have
> ever dealt with as an OSM mapper.
>

You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just
look at the number of articles about each peak, and render them according
to that. More articles=rendered at lower zooms. Problem solved, and you
don't have to put vague tags in OSM.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Mar 20, 2016, at 3:30 AM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> So far as "importance is concerned, that's not "sourced", that's your
> *subjective* interpretation.

Go google search for:

赤城(Generic images for Akagi) 

赤城神社. (The shrine and related shrines) 

赤城山 (the mountian itself) 

All the results are for things named after that mountain. There are my sources. 
Sources locals understand, because they recognize the connection the mountain 
and the things named after it. 

I can't scoop up images of all the road signs using "mount Akagi" as a control 
point for direction, paintings depicting the mountain.

I can point to it being one of the "3 mountains of Jomo" and on the list of the 
100 famous mountains of Japan" - and to the lack of other mountains being on 
the list. 

I can point to it being labeled as a visible  object on the observation deck 
map for the Tokyo Sky Tree.

But I can't aggravated this into some buzzfeed style listicle "11 mountains in 
Gunma you should see" - or a GIS database. 

Nor can I point to the lack of images for Kessamaru. Do you expect me to 
somehow meta-aggregate The Internet to show you why some mount and I some 
region should be labeled more or less prominently than others? Or can we use 
the power of locally sourced familiarity  that OSM is supposed to be drawing 
from? 

~~~

This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have ever 
dealt with as an OSM mapper. 

Q: Can we have some kind of sub-peak tag-relation so we can say "this is a 
small subpeak of a larger mountian, instead of the subpeaks competing with the 
main peak for rendering? 

A: no. It will get too confusing. And people will want to tag climbing 
prominence, and that is a big can of worms we don't want to open. 

Q: can we use a "hill" tag, so we can separate out these ~100 foot AGL little 
lumps that are named but shouldn't be rendered as a mountain peak?

A: no, we can't decide where to draw the line, so a 25m AGL mountain and mt 
Everest get tagged and rendered the same.

Q: then can we use this "local information" for locals to influence when  peaks 
are rendered, maybe using some kind of "importance" tag or something?

A: No, because We don't consider sources in aggregate - we're hoping for some 
magical, impossible GIS information solution that has never existed and will 
never exist, because local opinion is "subjective" and we want to be myopic 
that we are totally dependent on this local subjective nature for a myriad of 
other tags.

~

Getting the maps to render this kind of data has always required the opinion of 
the mapmakers. And OSM takes mappers' opinions with so many other tags - but 
for this it is unacceptable. for some unexplainable reason and hand wave saying 
it is somehow not empirical enough.

I can only conclude from these discussions - and comments from people 
controlling the rendering - that an *objectively* inferior or substandard map 
is good enough for the group, when it comes to mountains, because people want a 
data set to improve it that will never, ever exist. 

Javbw. 



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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 02:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis :
> > 
> > OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that
> > could lead to better rendered maps or better routing. 
> 
> 
> 
> importance is relative and it depends on your criteria which things
> you consider more important than others. I agree that we should
> better map the properties that make something important rather than
> stuff it all in a generalized "importance" tag. For mountains this
> will likely mean to look at prominence and topographic isolation, for
> train stations it can be amount of passengers or trains per time, or
> size (amount of platforms), availability of highspeed trains, etc.,
> for airports similarly you could look at amount and size of runway/s,
> passengers/time, amount of connections etc.
> the problem with rendering is that these calculations are typically
> too expensive to do them on the fly, but we could use precomputed
> data and integrate it in a coastline like way (external shape file or
> pre-computed attribute)

If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is subjective,
but there is no alternative. Without such categorization by mappers, it
would be necessary to calculate the type of road just by absolute
values such as the width, the surface, the number of cars per hour, the
number of lanes, etc. Everybody should agree that that would not work.

As the person who created that station importance draft, I will focus
on stations, but for other features like mountain peaks the situation
should be similar: It is not possible to calculate the importance of a
station just by some values. Values like the number of platforms or
passengers are just absolute values, but the importance of a station is
a relative information which is influenced by neighbouring features.
Without any importance-tag, it would be necessary to analyse many other
feature, which is very difficult. The importance of a station is
influenced by so many aspects that it is nearly impossible to calculate
it, especially in a reasonable time.

I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult to
measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other mappers. I
do not see a possibility to map such values for a larger number of
stations.

I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
algorithm might be very intransparent. There will be situations where
such algorithms produce results that does not fit to reality, but
mappers will not have any possibility to influence the results.
Currently one strength of OSM, compared to many commercial services, is
that we use the local knowledge of the mappers. With subjective tags
like highway=* they can map information that helps applications to
produce the best results.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 10:28 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:

> > But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and
> > prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many
> > international tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous
> > vents and enjoy the hot spring resorts inside the caldera. 
> 
> 
> I'd say: tourism=attraction for this volcano (admittedly another way
> of saying important=yes), the presence of the resorts also indicates
> importance. Is this checkable automatically? Not sure (of course you
> can check for this if you know what you're looking for, but a
> different place might have completely different reasons to be
> "important")

Correct, there are so many different aspects that influence the
importance, that it is nearly impossible to determine the importance so
that it fits to the importance in reality and how people see it.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

I was told point-blank by the head of OSM-carto on github That (as I remember 
it) 

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/323

A) "importance" is unverifiable, so it is useless for OSM. 

Gravitystorm:
"Importance' and related concepts fails the absolutely vital verifiability 
test, so it's not a suitable concept for OSM."

B) I assume then it will not be supported in -carto renderings. 

My example us d mountains in the post, as I had pictures to illustrate the 
issue. 

I wanted importance=local-city-regional-national-international or similar tag 
to put on mountains to control when it is rendered (So Mt Fuji and Mt Everest 
is rendered at a very low zoom level, mt Rushmore is rendered at a little 
closer zoom, San Gregornio (in Los Angeles) is rendered at a regional level, Mt 
Helix on a city level, and My tiny, unimportant little peak next to Mt Helix is 
rendered at a very local level (Grossmont Peak). 

This allows someone to say "these little named points all over the top of Mt 
Fuji (there are 7) should only be rendered locally (high zoom) and the Mt Fuji 
volcano icon should be rendered at z8 or something.  

OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that could lead to 
better rendered maps or better routing. 

Javbw

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:38 AM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> 
> I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use 
> importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of 
> railway:station_category=* :
> 
> http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html
> 
> The proposition is 7 years old:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance
> 
> and is quite generic. I think it would help for example with rendering 
> airports without resorting to less clear properties like size:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1734
> 
> and it would be good to have universal scheme instead of 
> railway:station_category=* or flights_range=*. Looks like it is being already 
> used and quite popular:
> 
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/importance
> 
> What do you think about making this scheme official?
> 
> -- 
> "Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Daniel Koć]

I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use 
importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of 
railway:station_category=* :


http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html

The proposition is 7 years old:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance

and is quite generic. I think it would help for example with rendering 
airports without resorting to less clear properties like size:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1734

and it would be good to have universal scheme instead of 
railway:station_category=* or flights_range=*. Looks like it is being 
already used and quite popular:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/importance

What do you think about making this scheme official?

--
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that could lead to 
> better rendered maps or better routing. 



importance is relative and it depends on your criteria which things you 
consider more important than others. I agree that we should better map the 
properties that make something important rather than stuff it all in a 
generalized "importance" tag. For mountains this will likely mean to look at 
prominence and topographic isolation, for train stations it can be amount of 
passengers or trains per time, or size (amount of platforms), availability of 
highspeed trains, etc., for airports similarly you could look at amount and 
size of runway/s, passengers/time, amount of connections etc.
the problem with rendering is that these calculations are typically too 
expensive to do them on the fly, but we could use precomputed data and 
integrate it in a coastline like way (external shape file or pre-computed 
attribute)


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 18.03.2016 18:50, Chris Hill napisał(a):

There are no official tags. Only tags that are used and / or 
documented.


I understand it, just used informal wording. I meant "accepted by voting 
and documented as such on Wiki", which is - well - longer.


--
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 19 March 2016 at 17:47, John Willis  wrote:

>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to
>> some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom?
>
> All of the examples I have given are all sourced in local culture.
>
> Usually having things named after it, noted on road signs, depicted in 
> paintings, noted in historical documents, included in historic lists (of 
> famous peaks), and other *easily understood* things that provincial or 
> regional people would be able to define - but be extremely difficult for a 
> person who doesn't live in the country or region (or speak the language) to 
> verify.

So far as "importance is concerned, that's not "sourced", that's your
*subjective* interpretation.


> an argument against subjective data

You have yet to give evidence that there is any subjective data
relating to the very vague concept of "importance".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Mar 19, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept

So displaying more important train stations that:

- are more well known, so people would look for them.
- are popular points for people (for stations, more amenities and trains), so 
marking the ones more likely to be the ones people want (AKA the big station on 
the big line vs the little unimportant station on the nearby line that has a 
similar name)

-are better to be mapped because they provide spatial awareness because their 
location is widely known 

Applies equally to mountains or stations. 

In Japan, there is a national joke about people showing up in my (tiny) town 
town to climb my Fuji because the name of the station in my town is "below Mt 
Fuji" in Chinese. The tiny 6 story tall mountain is named my Fuji, as are 
hundreds of other little hills and mountains in Japan. 

Google used it in a national ad campaign to promote "ok Google", showing a 
bunch of Americans showing up at the wrong station, and some people could help 
them (thanks to google translation or whatever). 

https://youtu.be/FWDpu0CDfHk

I'm sure the popular train stations near Fuji and the little local stop for 
grandmas and students to go to the grocery store would have different 
importance rankings. 

Similarly,

Hiding the Mt Fuji red volcano icon under orange little icons for its little 
labeled points Obscures the more important label of Mt Fuji with labels and 
icons 99% of people don't care about, right?

Hiding the rendered label of a very important station because it has some other 
nearby local stations that crowd out its rendering seems like the same thing to 
me. 

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to
> some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? 

All of the examples I have given are all sourced in local culture. 

Usually having things named after it, noted on road signs, depicted in 
paintings, noted in historical documents, included in historic lists (of famous 
peaks), and other *easily understood* things that provincial or regional people 
would be able to define - but be extremely difficult for a person who doesn't 
live in the country or region (or speak the language) to verify.

Is someone supposed to make a "importance" database, detailing the hundreds or 
thousands of references that a mountain's name is used in - or can some local 
mappers just tag it to influence the renderings below z15 so it doesn't look 
like a useless jumble of unordered garbage labels? 

I think it is very obvious to people here that giving an icon and label to all 
of the little points on the lip of the crater of Mt Fuji the same rendering 
priority as the entire volcano of Mt Fuji is wrong. 

I also think it is obvious that rendering an icon for a 25m AGL hill in a city 
park with the same icon and labeling as a 2500m mountain is wrong. 

Doing nothing to rectify the situation - and using an argument against 
subjective data - when so many other types of data in OSM are ranked and 
rendered with subjective, but verifiable by locals - seems obtuse, and produces 
a objectively and unarguably inferior map. 

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/03/2016 07:41, johnw wrote:
OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of 
things. Mountains are no different.


Great!  Let's gather lots of data about each place...

Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms 
via some GIS data is ridiculous.


No, as Andy and Richard have already pointed out it's the _exact 
opposite_ of that.  Richard's already mentioned how he gives pubs 
different prominence depending on where they're located; many of the 
"specialist maps created with OSM data" use some other data (relevant to 
that map) to decide what to render and when (e.g. historical tags, 
railway tags, whatever).




So we render them all equally - which is equally as ridiculous.


Who's this "we"?  There are lots of maps made with OSM data; there are 5 
different ones on osm.org.  A related issue that I've been thinking for 
a while now how to make natural=peak render sensibly when there are lots 
of them together, like here for example:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.9348/-3.5334

Even by the "does it look impressive from the road" measure, some of 
those "natural=peak" I suspect are really very prominent, some of them 
are not, and some probably aren't really peaks at all (we've had a bit 
of an issue in GB with a keen but somewhat misguided mapper adding 
spot-heights from historic maps as "peaks", some of which have since 
become quarries).


What isn't going to work is deciding that some of them are, by some 
measure, "important".  We got to that problem (via a different route) 
with individual trees and lots of problems ensued.  According to 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=natural%3Dpeak there are 
over 14k natural=peak in GB; it's very likely that be any global 
"importance" measure _none_ of those in that map view are.  Even some 
local measure isn't going to work as I'm certainly not going to review 
14k bits of data and with no local knowledge try and come up with some 
"importance" value.


What we need to do instead is come up with a way of using other 
verifiable data, perhaps from OSM, perhaps from other sources, that 
allows maps to decide whether it is, in their eyes "important".


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according 
> to some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to 
> whom? The people who live near them? Tourists? Mountaineers? 
> Ornithologists? Aviators? Geologists? Climatologists? Oil 
> prospectors?).

Exactly.

Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sg%C3%B9rr_Dearg

This is the notorious "Inaccessible Pinnacle". If you're a mountaineer,
specifically a Munro bagger, it's a highly significant peak: it's the
hardest Munro (Scottish peak over 3000ft) to get. If you're a tourist
looking for pretty mountains, though, it's probably not significant; it's
just, well, a bit of rock. Wider cultural significance? I couldn't tell you.
Somewhere between the two: certainly less than Ben Nevis, but how do you
decide the "importance" of the hardest peak to climb in Scotland which just
happens to be an anonymous lump of rock?

Importance means value judgements. One of the reasons OSM is so successful
is that our data doesn't make value judgements. This allows people to make
their own maps with their own value judgements. This is why OSM has become,
from nowhere, the world's pre-eminent geodata source for walking and cycling
- because every other dataset is car-biased. Let's not close off future uses
of OSM by imposing centralised value judgements on its data.

John Willis wrote:
> Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms 
> via some GIS data is ridiculous. 

It's only ridiculous, to be blunt, if you're no good at GIS. I show
identically-tagged pubs at different zoom levels on cycle.travel based on my
own criteria, not some importance scale that someone else has decreed. It
takes me about three lines of PostGIS and two lines of CartoCSS. It isn't
hard at all.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/importance-tag-for-transportation-etc-tp5870183p5870224.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 19 March 2016 at 07:41, johnw  wrote:

> OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of
> things. Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are
> worth labeling at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous.

It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to
some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? The
people who live near them? Tourists? Mountaineers? Ornithologists?
Aviators? Geologists? Climatologists? Oil prospectors?).

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 19.03.2016 um 08:41 schrieb johnw :


first, those internationally unknown volcanoes in Russia won't compete with 
your Japanese mountains, because they're too far away, what I suggested was 
aimed at deciding locally what to show/label, not necessarily compare 
significance on a global level.


> 
> Right next to Mt Fuji is a collapsed volcano and caldera called Mt Hakone 
> https://goo.gl/maps/hNSC9NwsHg42 . it is very short now, and not nearly as 
> prominent as nearby Mt Ashitaka or (of course) Mt Fuji.


the fact that it is a volcano might already come into play when deciding what 
to render/label


> But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and prominence would 
> say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many international tourists) come 
> there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous vents and enjoy the hot spring resorts 
> inside the caldera. 


I'd say: tourism=attraction for this volcano (admittedly another way of saying 
important=yes), the presence of the resorts also indicates importance. Is this 
checkable automatically? Not sure (of course you can check for this if you know 
what you're looking for, but a different place might have completely different 
reasons to be "important")

cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[johnw]

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:
> 
> prominence and topographic isolation,

Neither are good measures of mountains, besides for record holders. 

- There are bigger volcanoes than Mt Fuji  in Russia, just north of Japan, that 
no one knows the names of (internationally). They are equally isolated. 
Klyuchevskaya Sopka is over 4200m (fuji is 3776), and equally as isolated as Mt 
Fuji - and no one outside of that region knows it’s name. 

Who can name one of the other 12 peaks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 
California that are over 14,000 feet tall, within 500 feet as tall as Mt 
Whitney (14,505)? I can name Mt Langley, but that is about it. 

- Mt fuji is climbed by 100X (?) more people during climbing season than 
Everest. So should Mt Everest be rendered later? What About Denali? Few people 
climb it. 


But these are all record holding - international, national, or regional 
mountains - this idea of mapping mountains via prominence or topography 
completely and utterly fails at a provincial level. 

Regionally and provincially important mountains are often more important than 
their taller neighbors due to their proximity to towns, or odd shapes - not any 
height or isolation. Their proximity to the towns ingrains them into the 
culture, through naming, religious significance, or tourism reasons.

Right next to Mt Fuji is a collapsed volcano and caldera called Mt Hakone 
https://goo.gl/maps/hNSC9NwsHg42  . it is 
very short now, and not nearly as prominent as nearby Mt Ashitaka or (of 
course) Mt Fuji. But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and 
prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many international 
tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous vents and enjoy the hot 
spring resorts inside the caldera. 

In my region, Mt Akagi is famous. https://goo.gl/maps/8A5STm9VwAs 
 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Akagi 
 . WWII buffs may recognize the 
name, as the Carrier Akagi (lost at the battle of midway) is named after it. It 
is the namesake of hundreds, perhaps thousands of places and things (I drink 
"Mt. Akaki” Sake).  However, Mt Kessamaru is higher than Mt Akagi nearby. Most 
people don’t know of it, nor care. This mountain, and two other visible, but 
low mountains are called the “three mountains” of my provience - though they 
are surrounded by taller ones. And the little points around the caldera (some 
of which Google renders alongside Mt Akagi’s label) are only locally known, and 
shouldn’t be rendered except at high zoom. 

OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of things. 
Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling 
at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous. 

So we render them all equally - which is equally as ridiculous. 

So we will never have a better map / map data than the random GIS data that 
everyone already has and already uses to make inferior, confusing maps - which 
is what I’m trying to fix in OSM.  

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Chris Hill]

On 18/03/16 17:38, Daniel Koć wrote:
I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use 
importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of 
railway:station_category=* :


http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html 



The proposition is 7 years old:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance

and is quite generic. I think it would help for example with rendering 
airports without resorting to less clear properties like size:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1734

and it would be good to have universal scheme instead of 
railway:station_category=* or flights_range=*. Looks like it is being 
already used and quite popular:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/importance

What do you think about making this scheme official?


There are no official tags. Only tags that are used and / or documented.

--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi John,

Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis:
> I was told point-blank by the head of OSM-carto on github That (as I remember 
> it) 
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/323
> 
> A) "importance" is unverifiable, so it is useless for OSM. 
> 
> Gravitystorm:
> "Importance' and related concepts fails the absolutely vital verifiability 
> test, so it's not a suitable concept for OSM."

I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept
but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable and
suitable for OSM. Just take the timetable or go out and stay one day on
the platforms, count and note down all stopping trains. In addition,
more important stations often have better/more facilities for
passengerts like a ticket shop (smaller ones only have vending
machines), a toilet, backeries, fast food stores, waiting rooms, etc.

If OSM would free of any importance-like tags, we would not have the
highway=* tag as we have it now. Tagging is highway=primary vs.
secondary, secondary vs. tertiary, tertiary vs. unclassified is often a
question of importance, not only width, paving and lane count.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Michael Reichert]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

Am 18.03.2016 um 18:38 schrieb Daniel Koć:
> and it would be good to have universal scheme instead of 
> railway:station_category=* or flights_range=*. Looks like it is
> being already used and quite popular:

You know that you usually have more train stations than airports per
square kilometre, don't you? :-) That's why creating on tagging scheme
for both might be difficult.

> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/importance

importance=* is mainly used in France. Usage in Germany was brought to
Germany by French mappers who mapped international TGV route
relations. It is only (with some few exceptions) used on railway
tracks, but not on stations.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/f6Q

> What do you think about making this scheme official?

Have you read the objections at OpenRailwayMap mailing list? Especially:
http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/00041
0.html
http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/00042
4.html
http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/00042
6.html

The old importance proposal might fit well for small countries like
Belgium, the Netherland, Austria or Switzerland. But it is not
suitable for larg countries (Germany, US) and islands (UK). How much
stations in UK or US have international trains?

Best regards

Michael


- -- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=d/T7
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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