Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 24/05/11 00:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: [...] the landuse values describing built-up space should usually not be split below plot size. I'll read that as another vote against small landuse plots, but again: there's nothing in the wiki explaining this fact, and in fact landuse is regularly used for plot-sized areas of land. leisure=garden inside a landuse=residential area could be used for a private garden, maybe together with access=private. You can also use garden:type=residential with it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification -1, Residential private gardens are not for general user's leisure activities, and therefore no not belong in the leisure=* key. See my original post. I'm easy about whether I recommend landuse=residential residential=garden or just residential=garden within a landuse=residential polygon, or even garden=residential on its own within a landuse=residential polygon (sort of like the stalled proposal's wrongheaded :type key, but allowing the user to decide whether general leisure purposes fit as well. A leisure=garden would be strictly optional, and we should document the meaning of adding that). Which do people prefer? -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
If there would be a consensus on only using landuse=* tags on bigger surfaces (and not for single houses), the use of residential=garden or garden=residential should be possible without it being in a landuse=residential area. In Belgium, the spatial planning is worthless and there are lots of buildings (normal houses, not farms) that stand in the middle of a farmland ( e.g.: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.935717mlon=3.066187zoom=18layers=M). This is mostly due to the two WWs we got, the rebuilding of houses and streets went fast, not in a natural way and most of the time with a lot of communication errors. I do not have a strict opinion whether it should be residential=garden or garden=residential, but as the first one sounds like a specialisation of landuse=residential, I think that garden=residential should be better. regards, Sander ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 24/05/11 10:09, Sander Deryckere wrote: [...] there are lots of buildings (normal houses, not farms) that stand in the middle of a farmland [...] I do not have a strict opinion whether it should be residential=garden or garden=residential, but as the first one sounds like a specialisation of landuse=residential, I think that garden=residential should be better. Very good point, +1. I'm moving towards garden=residential on its own as the suggested way of flagging private residential gardens. Backwards compatibility and pretty rendering is maintained if we let the tag stand on its own. Semantically it's interesting: garden=residential defines some quality of garden-ness without declaring that it's for leisure use, or indeed for any other purpose. If you want to say more about an object you can add more tags, which makes it combinable with the existing schema. Does the object be used for leisure by the general map user? Then add leisure=garden. Otherwise don't. It seems extensible too, and it might ultimately provide a way forward for the defunct http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification#. At the very least we can steal the type values for use with this garden=* refinement key :) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Thanks for the feedback, everyone! I think a plan is emerging, and I've updated http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden#Deprecate_this_for_private.2C_residential_gardens.3F with the pros and cons of the suggested alternative schemes as I understand them. Right now it looks like the pros of garden=residential outweigh those of the others, and that tag doesn't seem to have any major problems. It also extricates us from the landuse=* warren and keeps a lot of precise meaning on a single object without being too heavyweight. Looks like there's general consensus that landuse is not for small parcels. Good enough for me. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Le 24/05/2011 10:39, Andrew Chadwick (lists) a écrit : On 24/05/11 00:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: [...] the landuse values describing built-up space should usually not be split below plot size. I'll read that as another vote against small landuse plots, but again: there's nothing in the wiki explaining this fact, and in fact landuse is regularly used for plot-sized areas of land. leisure=garden inside a landuse=residential area could be used for a private garden, maybe together with access=private. You can also use garden:type=residential with it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification -1, Residential private gardens are not for general user's leisure activities, and therefore no not belong in the leisure=* key. See my original post. I'm easy about whether I recommend landuse=residential residential=garden or just residential=garden within a landuse=residential polygon, or even garden=residential on its own within a landuse=residential polygon (sort of like the stalled proposal's wrongheaded :type key, but allowing the user to decide whether general leisure purposes fit as well. A leisure=garden would be strictly optional, and we should document the meaning of adding that). Which do people prefer I'd rather use the residential=garden as it may start a set of values to describe sub-polygons in a landuse residential. here http://osm.org/go/0CUOvbQ1-- is a suburb I would improve, there are grass areas, parkings between buildings. The fact of having a main landuse=residential ans sub residential=* (and, why not, residential=parking that is not a public parking, and in the same way we could have a industrial=parking that is only for the workers of the company or for visitors) would permit this improvement. -- FrViPofm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 24/05/11 10:57, Vincent Pottier wrote: I'd rather use the residential=garden as it may start a set of values to describe sub-polygons in a landuse residential. here http://osm.org/go/0CUOvbQ1-- is a suburb I would improve, there are grass areas, parkings between buildings. You have landuse=grass and amenity=parking|access=private already. (I know the latter scheme sucks for precisely the same reason I'm going on about upthread, but it has its own rendering in Mapnik right now. Presumably its simplicity and obviousness outweighed its wrongness back then.) The fact of having a main landuse=residential ans sub residential=* (and, why not, residential=parking that is not a public parking, and in the same way we could have a industrial=parking that is only for the workers of the company or for visitors) would permit this improvement. It looks like not tarbabying this thread's garden-related proposal in with a pile of residential-landuse refinement tags is going to be least controversial. There's a need to address the meanings of overlapping landuses or possibly even areas generally that I don't really wish to address in something as simple as a rewording of the docs for gardens. But that said, perhaps a second proposal for residential-landuse refinement tags would make sense elsewhere. landuse=residential combined with residential=gardens - note the plural - might be sensible if it were proposed as part of it. (Plus I like the idea of defanging the great over-general bear of amenity=*, but that's even more of a side-issue!) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 24 May 2011 20:23, Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote: There's a need to address the meanings of overlapping landuses or possibly even areas generally that I don't really wish to address in something as simple as a rewording of the docs for gardens. There's not nearly as many overlapping cases as you might think, once you realise the fact that many of the landuse=* tags are not really landuse. They're landcover, instead. Landuse is what an area is used for, landcover is what is actually on it. Landuse tags are things like commercial, residential, park, school, etc - and usually cover larger areas. Landcover type tags are things that are actually on the land - gardens, roads, ponds, grass, parking, buildings, etc - not what the area as a whole is used for. It's unusual for two landuse or two landcover tags to overlap. The more usual case is one large landuse type area with many smaller landcover areas inside it. The fact that many landcover tags come in the form landuse= is confusing, and has been discussed before. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Sounds good to me. Polyglot 2011/5/23 Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com I'm suggesting that we remove the language on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden and I welcome your comments! This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) suggesting landuse=residential residential=garden as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: 1. Supporting A) Residential gardens are of little interest for the general map data consumer's leisure activities. Therefore they should not be tagged using the leisure=* namespace for reasons of backwards compatibility (see 3 below), consistent rendering (see 3 also), and descriptive soundness (see 2 and 4). 2. Supporting B) They are however a form of land use, so the landuse=* tag seems appropriate. Specifically, they're a kind of residential landuse, so it makes sense to refine a use of landuse=residential. So the combination in B) seems appropriate. 3. Supporting A and B) Use of leisure=garden means that renderers cannot distinguish between private residential gardens and public or fee-private leisure space gardens without deploying extra rules. It would be more sensible and backwards compatible to do something else, particularly since trac ticket 3302 doesn't show any signs of being closed any time soon. Rendering residential gardens in the same colours as surrounding residential landuse that -isn't- gardens both looks prettier when the renderer doesn't do anything special to support residential gardens, and makes for a more consistent-looking map (since many users don't care two hoots about tagging residential gardens, but their neighbours do). 4. Supporting B) The drill-down pattern used here adds an additional layer of meaning to areas of residential landuse. What I've been calling iterative refinement to date. 5. Supporting B, but full disclosure...) There are 756 uses of residential=garden in the wiki at present, http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/residential=garden , but I've added possibly the majority of those myself by changing a great many local objects using the erroneous tagging scheme to the scheme I want. There may have been ~100 uses before, which is why I'm listing it near-last. 6. Supporting A and partly B) General sanity-check nod on #osm. See the Talk:Tag:leisure=garden page in the wiki. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 23/05/2011 12:15, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote: I'm suggesting that we remove the language on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden and I welcome your comments! This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) suggesting landuse=residential residential=garden as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: I agree with all this for not using leisure=garden. Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as residential=garden, without the landuse tag. Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then map individual gardens and houses etc within that. No need to use two tags when one will say just as much. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 23/05/11 13:17, Craig Wallace wrote: Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as residential=garden, without the landuse tag. Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then map individual gardens and houses etc within that. No need to use two tags when one will say just as much. Agreed about how this would likely be used (because that's how it currently is being used, around here). For backwards compatibility though, I think you need to say both on the same object, and it does no harm to reiterate the landuse tag. Complete aside - please excuse the bad ASCII art - but in the general case of two overlapping areas does +-+ | foo=bar | +---+---+ | | | X | | | +---+-+ | quux=xyz | +---+ really carry the meaning foo=bar|quux=xyz for the union area marked X? It seems to be implied in what you're saying, and perhaps it's logically the case, but we shouldn't necessarily map like that to avoid ambiguity. What would happen if the Southernmost area also defined some foo=* property other than foo=bar? Are both foo=* values now applicable to X, or must a data consumer resolve in favour of one or the other? Better to represent X as its own non-overlapping object, so that data consumers only have to consider one object. Apologies for the slight aside there. It's not really an ambiguity in the case of a landuse=Y inside a landuse=Y :) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Le 23/05/2011 14:17, Craig Wallace a écrit : On 23/05/2011 12:15, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote: I'm suggesting that we remove the language on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden and I welcome your comments! This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) suggesting landuse=residential residential=garden as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: I agree with all this for not using leisure=garden. Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as residential=garden, without the landuse tag. Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then map individual gardens and houses etc within that. No need to use two tags when one will say just as much. Hum ! Interesting. I imagine we could map a large area with a landuse=residential, and inside, in micromapping, polygons with residential=garden. It would avoid having several polygons ovelapping with landuse tags, or a multipolygon with thousand inner members producing errors in postGIS when several inners are juxtaposed. So we can easily combine different mapping level. Mapnik would give different renderings, with transparency. A way that seems good to explore... -- FrViPofm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Andrew Chadwick wrote: landuse=residential residential=garden This implies that the landuse=residential tag would be used on smale-scale structures, which I believe should not be done. landuses are large-scale areas. When you create a landuse polygon for an individual building or garden, you are doing something wrong, imo. A residential garden is not a residential area. It is, however, found *within* a residential area. Therefore, it should be mapped as an area within another area tagged as landuse=residential, and should not itself be tagged as landuse=residential. Look at buildings for an analogy: We don't tag residential buildings as landuse=residential + residential=building, but as building polygons *within* a residential area. Rendering residential gardens in the same colours as surrounding residential landuse that -isn't- gardens both looks prettier when the renderer doesn't do anything special to support residential gardens The same effect can be achieved if residential gardens are not rendered at all, and the residential landuse that contains the gardens is rendered as usual. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
Am 23.05.2011 14:57, schrieb Vincent Pottier: Le 23/05/2011 14:17, Craig Wallace a écrit : On 23/05/2011 12:15, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote: I'm suggesting that we remove the language on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden and I welcome your comments! This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B) suggesting landuse=residential residential=garden as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this: I agree with all this for not using leisure=garden. Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as residential=garden, without the landuse tag. Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then map individual gardens and houses etc within that. No need to use two tags when one will say just as much. Hum ! Interesting. I imagine we could map a large area with a landuse=residential, and inside, in micromapping, polygons with residential=garden. It would avoid having several polygons ovelapping with landuse tags, or a multipolygon with thousand inner members producing errors in postGIS when several inners are juxtaposed. So we can easily combine different mapping level. Mapnik would give different renderings, with transparency. A way that seems good to explore... +1 at least for many landuses this might work. For farmland this will solve mircomapping of fields and keep the landuse as a bigger area. Even residential=road/street would be possible. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 23/05/11 14:13, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
landuse=residential
residential=garden
This implies that the landuse=residential tag would be used on
smale-scale structures, which I believe should not be done. landuses are
large-scale areas.
Hmm. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse does not back you up
or mention size limits. It might be interesting to see the distribution
of landuse area sizes by hectare.
All you can say about an area of landuse IMO is that it describes the
predominant usage of land within it, ideally 50%.
When you create a landuse polygon for an individual
building or garden, you are doing something wrong, imo.
Yes, since landuse is not about individual plots. If we go the landuse
route for this, it would make sense to explain that and suggest that
mappers use broad brush-strokes.
Personally I think it would make sense to map broad areas of gardens
plural, but I'm not enough of a detail-head to map each individual
garden (...perhaps there's scope for a plot=* tag for those who are..!)
A residential garden is not a residential area. It is, however, found
*within* a residential area. Therefore, it should be mapped as an area
within another area tagged as landuse=residential, and should not itself
be tagged as landuse=residential.
I've always considered residential landuse to cover the extent of all
the plots within it when I have aerial imagery, gardens included, but
also to -mean- {housing -or- associated private gardens -or- any access
roads or paths passing into the area}. So in my book it's just a
further-typed kind of residential land use.
By that of course is just MHO and I see where you're coming from when
you say
Look at buildings for an analogy: We don't tag residential buildings as
landuse=residential + residential=building, but as building polygons
*within* a residential area.
Are proposing to recommend garden=residential (on its own), like
building=residential? It's come up before in other discussions, and that
could work too, it's not a bad system. The building case even has its
own special rendering :)
People have suggested garden=* as a tag for typifying the type a garden
is. It works on its own, implies garden-ness (of some undefined
higher-level meaning) and it works in conjunction with any tag with
garden as its value. I could be convinced by this, let me know what it
is you're suggesting.
Whether we suggest landuse=* or a garden=* typifier (on its own), I hope
there's agreement here that the vast majority of residential gardens
should *not* be leisure=garden objects.
Rendering residential gardens in the same colours
as surrounding residential landuse that -isn't- gardens both looks
prettier when the renderer doesn't do anything special to support
residential gardens
The same effect can be achieved if residential gardens are not rendered
at all, and the residential landuse that contains the gardens is
rendered as usual.
Seems fine to me... I don't want them rendered differently from
residential grey :) Perhaps one day when every swathe of back gardens is
mapped as an area some topical maps may wish to show it. Up to them. For
now, let's just suggest a scheme for mappers to use.
--
Andrew Chadwick
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
