Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. It would probably be worthwhile making a call on the classification that applies to these kinds of camp grounds. Ian. I currently tag those: amenity=camp_site drinking_water=no toilets=no Or amenity=camp_site drinking_water=no toilets=yes toilets:disposal=pitlatrine If the camp_site is mapped as an area, you can omit the toilets=yes tag but not the drinking_water=no ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3 May 2015 at 15:27, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no answer. I'm in also in favour of subjective decisions, when we need a subjective decision, to be made close to the source. However, there are some tags that simply aim to group objective facts by applying a ruleset to them. From the description this looks like one of those cases. I look to see what amenity a campsite has, look up the proposal, and decide on a category to assign it to. I can choose to list the amenities too if I want. People might misinterpret the ruleset, and meanwhile, we are losing hard data about the amenities. Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category? Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 17:43 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category? Do you mean when using the proposed camp_site= tag Ian ? No, no scope or need for subjective here. I personally get a bit annoyed when OSmers use subjective like its a swear word but here, no need for it. The steps nominated represent a reasonably consistent progression. And very simple tests to see what level we are talking about. It could be compared to using highway=. I'd be pretty surprised if you have not used that at some stage. But in fact, the interface to camp_site= is heaps cleaner than to highway= ! Whats the basic difference between residential and unclassified, how many houses along the side of a primary road need be there ? And if we tag =track, suddenly different rendering rules seem to apply. Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously and often blur the edges. But we need to do it ! David Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware of. Agreed. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: It could be compared to using highway=. Yes, and highway is terrible ;-) Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously and often blur the edges. But we need to do it ! No, that's what mere humans do. ;-) We are OSMers, and we're designing a schema. I am 100% with Ian on this one. If there's no need to blur edges, as you put it, why oh why would we want to introduce that fuzziness into our data? Sensing that we may be at an impasse, I would at least insist that mappers are strongly encouraged to also enter information about specific amenities, even if they additionally use some fuzzy summarization tag. And app designers should make use of those specific tags, even if they additionally unpack the summarized tags. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that the data is usable. Agreed that we should map in such a way that makes the data most usable. I think raw data is more usable for app designers. You seem to think composite tags with fuzzy definitions are more usable. I could be wrong. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + power). Over time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g. how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another bloody campsite=* value, of course!). This also introduces unnecessary complexity that makes the data harder to use (e.g. an app that allows search for showers suddenly needs to know about the definition of campsite=serviced). I've made this point several times over the last several years, but either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or drinking water. So much of your use case is covered. Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made. I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably better. So we are playing the odds ! Please consider voting ! david ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3 May 2015 at 10:22, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database. The proposed categories are almost a mapping of the amenity to broad categories. So the mapper would have to identify the amenities, decide on a corresponding category, and tag that. I can't see any reason why this responsibility should be given to the mapper. The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware of. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3/05/2015 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: I can't see any reason why this responsibility should be given to the mapper. The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware of. Mappers take on many responsibilities. If a mapper chooses to enumerate all the facilities that too is a responsibility. And then the responsibility of rendering the 'level of amenity' falls to the render. Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no answer. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3/05/2015 10:22 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to look closely at the problem from a map user's point of view. We identified, in a few emails, twenty plus characteristics of camp sites that would interest people. There are undoubtedly a lot more ! Not possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. The object it to show on the map (without interrogation) the level of amenity at camp sites. If say 5 camp sites are shown on the map in close proximity to each other, at the moment there is no way to visually distinguish (from the rendering) between them for level of amenity. Most of the camp sites I have been too where a toilet is available have had water too, even 'dry' toilets (long drop or other). I'd think 'they' do this for sanitary reasons! The introduction of this tag does not mean that camp site features cannot be added in other ways, additional to or despite this tag. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to look closely at the problem from a map user's point of view. We identified, in a few emails, twenty plus characteristics of camp sites that would interest people. There are undoubtedly a lot more ! No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database. Not going to happen. But, speaking to campers around the world, it emerged that the scheme on the proposal adequately described a large percentage of camp sites AND a large percentage of end users needs. Its how campers describe sites amongst themselves. The assumption being the 'other' things probably come along at the appropriate level. So this proposal is about providing information to the end user (of typically a map). Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that the data is usable. And no reason to assume using this tag will discourage tagging of the individual features. Indeed, in typical usage, once a user identifies a likely camp site, they will drill down in some way and look at the details. Your concern seems to be about feature creep, I really cannot guarantee that won't happen but assure you the designers don't plan any such behaviour at this stage. Quite the converse. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site David power). Over time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g. how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another bloody campsite=* value, of course!). This also introduces unnecessary complexity that makes the data harder to use (e.g. an app that allows search for showers suddenly needs to know about the definition of campsite=serviced). I've made this point several times over the last several years, but either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or drinking water. So much of your use case is covered. Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made. I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably better. So we are playing the odds ! Please consider voting ! david ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] camp sites
Hi Folks, as some of you are possibly not subscribed to the tagging mailing list, thought I'd point out a proposal under way. Its about a rough classification of camp sites in an ordered way. With the intention of making them a bit easier to render or search for. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site Note we use camp site as being the larger area that we, in Oz, would call a camp ground. And what we would call camp site, where one tent or caravan would be set up, is a pitch. They are UK terms, that's OSM policy. But camping is Australia so please consider voting folks. The discussion has driven home to me just how lucky we are in this country in this respect at least ! David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. It would probably be worthwhile making a call on the classification that applies to these kinds of camp grounds. Ian. On 2 May 2015 at 10:25, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Hi Folks, as some of you are possibly not subscribed to the tagging mailing list, thought I'd point out a proposal under way. Its about a rough classification of camp sites in an ordered way. With the intention of making them a bit easier to render or search for. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site Note we use camp site as being the larger area that we, in Oz, would call a camp ground. And what we would call camp site, where one tent or caravan would be set up, is a pitch. They are UK terms, that's OSM policy. But camping is Australia so please consider voting folks. The discussion has driven home to me just how lucky we are in this country in this respect at least ! David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or drinking water. So much of your use case is covered. Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made. I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably better. So we are playing the odds ! Please consider voting ! david ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
