Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Re: "natural=water' wins. I can see that there's water there" You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes is very important for proper rendering of many maps. Also, many areas of natural=water actually

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 18:58 Ture Pålsson via Tagging rašė: > Could you elaborate a bit on what cartographic features on that map are > possible or impossible with the different reservoir tagging schemes? Symbolisation (colour), selection (different classes for different scales). In other maps

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tomas Straupis wrote: > In other maps reservoirs (US?) could have black border. The usual symbology on USGS and DMS maps is that the black border denotes an 'artificial shoreline', where the shore is either stabilized with riprap or concrete, or built up with

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 20:30 Kevin Kenny rašė: >> https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154 > Looks good, I think... but what is the tagging? waterway=rapid At the time of usage it was deprecated (and plural), but I know what that means and after each discussion on tagging list I'm less and

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

Hi Brian Le mar. 15 déc. 2020 à 00:57, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : > The wiki[1] says: "OpenStreetMap does not have 'banned features', as > anybody is allowed and encouraged to use any tag they think is useful." > Therefore, deprecating a feature does not "enforce or forbid" the use of a >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:52 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re: "natural=water' wins. I can see that there's water there" > > You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the > natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes > is

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:58 PM Tomas Straupis wrote: > Why? Cayaking info is pretty rare - opposite of lake/reservoir data. > Therefore it's fine to map what you need only: > https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154 Looks good, I think... but what is the tagging? An example (with

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

> If you believe that your argument in favor of tagging reservoirs as landuse is > strong, then you should have no objection to placing this question up for a > community vote, and allowing the community the freedom to decide. Brian, landuse=reservoir is the ORIGINAL and ACTIVE schema. Why

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Tomas, Since you are not willing to accept (1) an existing approved proposal, (2) new proposal to correct flaws in the first one, or (3) the overwhelming preference of the mapping community over the past four years[1], then I'm sorry but we must curtly dismiss your arguments as a one-man

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

The statistics reflect all areas, regardless of which editors were used to create them. I stand by them, as numbers do not lie. There was a 3:1 preference for water=reservoir during 2017 and 2018, two years prior to the change in iD preset. The data is open, and taginfo provides a very helpful

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Hello, Le mer. 16 déc. 2020 à 16:19, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : > If you are not willing to have this question put up for a proposal (where, > as with any proposal, you are free to present your argument for all to > consider), your arguments are in bad faith, and again, must be dismissed >

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re: "If only we could be this nimble on long standing things like > sunsetting ref=* on ways in favor of routes" > > Handling ref on routes and ways at the same time requires some more > complicated

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 19:44 Kevin Kenny rašė: > With respect to water, another concern of mine is that our tagging schema > does not > offer any way to tag that there are rapids in a river without knowing how to > grade the > difficulty of a canoe or kayak run. Why? Cayaking info is pretty rare -

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

> 16 dec. 2020 kl. 17:25 skrev Tomas Straupis : > > What about maps made according to Cartographic conventions? > You know, something on the lines of: https://map.geo.admin.ch > Would > it be possible to make maps of such quality writing general queries > like

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

Re: "If only we could be this nimble on long standing things like sunsetting ref=* on ways in favor of routes" Handling ref on routes and ways at the same time requires some more complicated processing, and for a long time osm2pgsql did not provide a standard way to do this in a consistent

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 20:03 Kevin Kenny rašė: > Many smaller reservoirs have artificially hardened shorelines completely > surrounding them, which could be why you thought that the symbology > distinguishes 'lake' from 'reservoir.' This might be correct. I guess it depends on direction you look at

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Tomas Straupis wrote: > This might be correct. I guess it depends on direction you look at > it: what is exception from the reservoir rule - hard shoreline or non > hard. I was thinking of the ways to map fuzzy shore in OSM and had the > same idea to tag fuzzy

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 14:29 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > And what is a problem of listing benefits of water=reservoir schema? > If there are none > I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema as unimportant But, please, stop pretending that there are no benefits.

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

> I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema > as unimportant Can you LIST the benefits? As you see them TODAY. So that we could evaluate/compare? (Not point to proposal on wiki, as largest part of it never materialised) ___

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 14:42 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: >> I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema >> as unimportant >> > > Can you LIST the benefits? As you see them TODAY. So that we could > evaluate/compare? > (Not point to proposal on wiki, as largest part of it never

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir > (just added) Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki? My arguments on the points you've added: 1. Regarding benefit of having a

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 7:20 AM Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > Note the last sentence. If the destination:ref must be the same as the ref > it is going to, then this would be I 787, or else all the ways along the > entire I 787 route should have their ref tags changed to indicate direction > as well.

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

Right, this is what I was thinking as well, it makes a lot of sense to have the direction that's on the sign post to aid with navigation. It seems a dedicated wiki that documents current practices would be helpful. Thank you! On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 16:33 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 16.12.2020

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Tomas, If you believe that your argument in favor of tagging reservoirs as landuse is strong, then you should have no objection to placing this question up for a community vote, and allowing the community the freedom to decide. On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:01 AM Tomas Straupis wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, at 05:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Trying to understand your question, the way in your example is tagged: destination Troy destination:ref I 787 North From the data consumer perspective, such tagging will generate a navigation instruction: "turn slightly right towards

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas > (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish > between lakes and rivers). It may be worth mentioning. > > But it is also the most typical and

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > https://huettenpalast.de/ meant to post this https://hostelgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/hafentraum-indoorcampinghostel-best-hostels-in-germany.jpg Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 04:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Individual as 1 cabin per site, or, as Mateusz raised, multiple cabins on one > site? even multiple cabins in one building https://huettenpalast.de/ #nothreadwithoutanedgecase ;-) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

My take on it: Wearing my data consumer's hat: For most purposes, I care about "this ground is covered with water". 'natural=water' is the main thing to look for, but I also have to look for 'landuse=reservoir' and several other things that I can't be bothered to look up at the moment. I have to

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 01:32 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > The iD editor preset appears to use water=reservoir while the JOSM > preset appears to use landuse=reservoir. Not entirely correct. * JOSM gives freedom to mappers and supports BOTH. * iD forces to use water=reservoir and evenmore pushes

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Brian, you're using statistics which DO NOT represent mappers preferences. If you would use only JOSM created objects - then it would be close to mappers preferences (as JOSM allows mappers to choose). But you use iD created/adjusted objects and as it does not allow showing your preference

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 17:19 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > The statistics reflect all areas, regardless of which editors were used to > create them. > I stand by them, as numbers do not lie. Have you heard of the saying "correlation is not causation"? You have to understand where numbers come from

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:34 AM Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Both tagging and wiki develop, hopefully forward. In this case, > Key:destination:ref redirects > onto an old 2012 proposal, I'm probably going to resolve that soon with > describing the current practice. > Thank you! If only we could be

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 18:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Then I can you show some map style that do it differently and > render all types of water areas in the same way (some > render also labels in the same way, with exception > for linear features) BTW. It is another advantage of

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas >> (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish >> between lakes and rivers). It may be

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

I'll tag both ways then, or better map none at all? Shirt, another dilemma. I need something stronger than tea. Peter Elderson Op wo 16 dec. 2020 om 17:04 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > > 2020-12-16, tr,

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 15:22 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir >> (just added) >> > > Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki? > > In my experience

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On 16.12.2020 14:19, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, at 05:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: What is written on the sign at this junction? If "North" is mentioned there I would be happy enough with the tagging above. That is correct, the sign says "I 787 North". However the wiki page for

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

OSM Wiki is "dedicated wiki that documents current practices" Yes, it is sometimes outdated - but it is unlikely to be changed by creating an exact duplicate. If you see something wrong you are welcome to edit it (feel free to ask for help if you need it). Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16, tr, 18:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Then I can you show some map style that do it differently and > render all types of water areas in the same way (some > render also labels in the same way, with exception > for linear features) >

[Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

In the year 2020 waterway=rapids has been added a couple hundred times, and the other two tags whitewater:section_grade and whitewater:rapid_grade have been used about 100 times each: https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/whitewater:rapid_grade/&***/whitewater:section_grade/&***/waterway/rapids

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

I see this subject directly related to the "hazard" discussion in the sense that I suggested to clearly define the difference between signposted hazards/dangers/warnings and un-signed such situations that are observable on the ground, and therefore are subject also to personal judgement. With

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

As the maintainer of the current hazard proposal - I don't really have strong opinions about signed versus unsigned hazards, though I know others do. However, signed hazards seem to be something that we all agree should be tagged, and this proposal is attempting to approve the collection of

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

+1 IMHO these are complementary. waterway=rapids can be tagged from overhead imagery, and the additional detail of the rapids can be added later by people with subject matter expertise. I see this as equivalent to sac_scale=* for hiking trails - it does not replace the underlying highway=path,

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 19:27 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > The last time I looked, there was no non-deprecated way to map the > information that I had. > That is sign of bad tagging scheme. > I now see that @jeisenbe has restored the `waterway=rapids` tag to the Wiki.   > Is it enough? > I asked

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I see this subject directly related to the "hazard" discussion in the sense > that I suggested to clearly define the difference between signposted > hazards/dangers/warnings and un-signed such situations that are observable > on the

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir. It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach. I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being sure what subtag to use. I now think

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

a few lines of code?). Now the map looks like this: http://lab3.turepalsson.se/~ture/rijmmoahpe-20201216.pdf . The red outlines show the areas that the renderer is actually considering when placing the labels. The label placement for Aleldusáhpe near the top of the map looks... less t

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

Brian, I am trying to put order in this also in my own mind. I think we should have an approach which is already clearly structured towards two things A the difference between - signposted hazards - unsigned hazards perceived by the mappers B for hazards that may have different degrees of

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

That Wikipedia page is right. The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

Volker, Thanks for the comments! For the specific linked case (winding road for 74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal - hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74 consecutive miles, that I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth of ways in

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American English. Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

I'm "one more OSM Contributor" volunteering my opinion here. I voted for the hazard proposal as is, although my vote included the note that "this proposal is a solid foundation for the (hazard) syntax of both today and tomorrow." There are such things: OSM has many examples of where we begin

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:24, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > Thanks for the comments! For the specific linked case (winding road for > 74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal - > hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74 > consecutive miles, that

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

I should have added ... So really, they're not "natural" in any way (except for the water in them!, & even that is frequently pumped in). Thanks Graeme On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams, >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams, because they're mounded up above the ground eg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg For a full explanation:

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature with basin=retention On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams, > because they're mounded up above the ground eg > >

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

I'm not sure how long it is, but California's Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast (a fairly well known, well loved road) has some equivalently lengthy (or longer) winding road signs I've seen. If anyone cares to Mapillary-sniff, I recall one near Carmel Highlands (near the "pink hotel?") and

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 17:52, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the natural=coastline) > from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes is very important > for proper rendering of many maps. and it seems

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

And while we're discussing here, Mateusz is already on a rampage to change wiki pages, write patches etc. Thus buldozzing his opinion, ignoring others. Showing "community building" behaviour. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:43, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature > with basin=retention > Maybe? But there's an awful lot of them tagged as reservoirs! Thanks Graeme > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick >

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

On 16/12/2020 08:41, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote: Maybe it would be better to use a convex hull... and then polylabel, and then have all the labels repel each other while being attracted to that point? Preferably this springy attract/repel should account for the text outline rather than

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

Trying to understand your question, the way in your example is tagged: destination Troy destination:ref I 787 North From the data consumer perspective, such tagging will generate a navigation instruction: "turn slightly right towards Troy, I 787 North". This would be helpful as long as

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 00:17 by zelonew...@gmail.com: > 1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created water=reservoir > (and other values) as to whether the community intended to deprecate > landuse=reservoir or whether the community intended to create two parallel > tagging schemes for

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 03:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 23:55, Paul Allen wrote: > >> >> 1) Holiday cottages are rarely building=cabin, they are mostly >> building=house. >> > > May depend on where you are? I know of a number of places that advertise > cottages /