Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
I forgot to mention that linear ways do have an implied width. It can be explicitly declared with the width tag. Although, other than waterways I don't /think/ any renderers take advantage of it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width DaveF On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Yes I *know*, Martin I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing with mapping every *square inch* of land. Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines. Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 'standard' rendering. On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote: On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way. Thanks Dave. But a way is a *line*. I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be much more difficult. If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
1 Jan 2020, 12:58 by mar...@templot.com: > On 01/01/2020 11:00, David Woolley wrote: > >> >> The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what is >> allowable. >> > > So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to discover > if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map renders it. > OSM Wiki, JOSM presets, Vespucci presets, JOSM validator, iD presets, asking other mappers, checkingtag usage, common sense are also available. There is no definitive specification. > If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. > Just because it renders as one person expects in one specific map style it does not mean that it is correctly mapped.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
1 Jan 2020, 15:31 by silentspike...@gmail.com: > Definitely don't rely on the standard map to drive tagging practise, > rendering decisions for the standard map are made based on tag usage. > I would treat Standard Map display as a hint. It is not final authority, but it very give an useful feedback. Decisions about what and how should be rendered are not based solely on tag usage, but it is the most important part. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
1 Jan 2020, 08:13 by mar...@templot.com: > Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. > Why? > Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway > It is ok to use tags that were never voted on and ones that lost votes. > However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as > evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown infill > This is a misuse of the Standard Map Style. It is not defining correct use. (I am author of current road rendering in this map style, or to be more specific - person who did last major redesign) > betweenthe fences with the existing highway=track as a routable way > superimposed over it, in darker brown. > This is not an intended use of highway=track + area=yes, its valid use is for squares/areas on highway=track, where vehicles drive in any directions It is typical in logging camps, where wood is stored, moved between vehicles, processed etc. In case of wide and frequent misuse rendering of highway=track + area=yes will be removed to discourage it. It happened before with highway=proposed and area rendering for tourism=attraction > It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to have > a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that way. > Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are doing. > This is a mapping for renderer and it is incorrect. Developer of the Standard Map Style sending this message is not approving this kind of tagging. Please use area:highway for road areas and landuse=highway for area used for road infrastructure if you want to map this kind of thing.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
On 01/01/2020 12:49, Martin Wynne wrote: See also man_made=street_cabinet. The wiki page invites us to add additional usage tags: True, but it's not really a good idea to "expand" the meaning of a key that's already in use too far - it just makes it harder to identify the (in this case) "original street cabinets" used for roadside wiring etc. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet perhaps street_cabinet=pickup_locker The actual values used for this key can be seen at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/street_cabinet#values , and no-one seems to be using it for e.g. Amazon / Inpost lockers. Instead, Phil's example of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5978482863 is a fairly typical example, except that worldwide quite a lot of these from various providers seem to be two-way - see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/vending#values . Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
While there is no formally approved proposal for tagging highway areas, I'd direct you towards `area:highway` ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway) Definitely don't rely on the standard map to drive tagging practise, rendering decisions for the standard map are made based on tag usage. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 11:58, Martin Wynne wrote: So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to discover if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map renders it. There are a large number of things that are perfectly valid that are nor rendered by the standard Mapnik layer. If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. That pretty much defines tagging for the renderer. The map isn't any two dimensional image, but the actual data from which that image was generated. Otherwise, why call it the "Standard" map? Loose terminology, a convenient shorthand. It is rather more than a demonstrator, it is used in many places for actual use, see for example: That's because people make a choice that it is adequate for their purpose. Part of that choice may be related to not wanting to spend time searching for something better, or to use someone else's tile server. (In practice, the site you quote is probably using a snapshot of the "standard" style, and not the current version. They need to create their own tiles for fair usage reasons.) The standard rendering tends to follow, rather than lead, actual usage. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
I had mapped, but forgotten to add the operator to the Inpost locker at Morrisions. The only thing I have ever collected from Inpost are my two interrail passes for SOTM Milan and SOTM Heidelberg. Maybe a Morrions without such lockers mapped is a survey opportunity? Phil (trigpoint) On Wed, 2020-01-01 at 12:51 +, Tony OSM wrote: > Hi > > My local Morrisons supermarket has 2 sets, I have tagged > > amenity=vending_machine > > operator=InPost (2nd one has Amazon) > > vending=parcel_pickup;parcel_mail_in (these machines often receive > parcels as well as deliver them) > > location=indoor|outdoor could useful - i've just added this while > writing > > They don't render on the 'standard' map, but the data is there if > anyone > wants to render > > Happy Mapping New Year > > TonyS999 > > On 01/01/2020 12:18, Dan Glover wrote: > > Please forgive me if this is has been debated previously - I'm new > > here and having trouble finding a searchable archive for this list. > > > > A local mapper has added an Amazon "Hub Locker", tagged as > > amenity=post_box. This causes it to flag as an anomaly when > > comparing > > against Royal Mail data. My view is this is not a "post box" since > > it > > forms part of delivery rather than collection arrangements. > > > > However I can see there may be some benefit in mapping such > > facilities, albeit anyone wanting to use it will need to make > > advance > > arrangements with Amazon and chose from a list of locations. This > > is > > a different situation to Royal Mail where there is no official > > "post > > box finder" and one is at liberty to use any convenient box at any > > time. Searching the OSM Wiki doesn't seem to provide any specific > > guidance but hints that Amazon might be persuaded to contribute > > the > > locations directly, since they are apparently both consumers and > > contributors to OSM. > > > > Arguably parcel drop-off points for Hermes and so forth might be > > suitable for inclusion, though they're not a stand-alone feature > > but > > part of facilities at a premises and again require advance action > > by > > the user to select . > > > > Is there existing policy/guidance/consensus and if not, what is > > the > > best way to proceed? > > > > > > Dan > > > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
Remember that features in OpenStreetMap are not only useful for finding those features. If you know a region has the pickup lockers all mapped, you could do analysis such as density of their locations (do they favour more expensive neighbourhoods, or how accessible are they by traffic-free cycle routes, and so forth). You could even start looking at history of where they've been removed or how they've increased in number. This is not so possible by the list you select from when making a purchase. Gregory. On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, 12:43 Philip Barnes, wrote: > They are certainly not post boxes, I have used amenity=vending_machine, > vending=parcel_pickup which is a combination that probably came from > asking on #osm. > > > For example my local one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5978482863 > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pna indicates the taging has a fair amount > of useage. > > HTH > Phil (trigpoint) > > > > On Wed, 2020-01-01 at 12:18 +, Dan Glover wrote: > > Please forgive me if this is has been debated previously - I'm new > > here > > and having trouble finding a searchable archive for this list. > > > > A local mapper has added an Amazon "Hub Locker", tagged as > > amenity=post_box. This causes it to flag as an anomaly when > > comparing > > against Royal Mail data. My view is this is not a "post box" since > > it > > forms part of delivery rather than collection arrangements. > > > > However I can see there may be some benefit in mapping such > > facilities, > > albeit anyone wanting to use it will need to make advance > > arrangements > > with Amazon and chose from a list of locations. This is a different > > situation to Royal Mail where there is no official "post box finder" > > and > > one is at liberty to use any convenient box at any time. Searching > > the > > OSM Wiki doesn't seem to provide any specific guidance but hints > > that > > Amazon might be persuaded to contribute the locations directly, > > since > > they are apparently both consumers and contributors to OSM. > > > > Arguably parcel drop-off points for Hermes and so forth might be > > suitable for inclusion, though they're not a stand-alone feature but > > part of facilities at a premises and again require advance action by > > the > > user to select . > > > > Is there existing policy/guidance/consensus and if not, what is the > > best > > way to proceed? > > > > > > Dan > > > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
Hi Dan, See also man_made=street_cabinet. The wiki page invites us to add additional usage tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet perhaps street_cabinet=pickup_locker cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
They are certainly not post boxes, I have used amenity=vending_machine, vending=parcel_pickup which is a combination that probably came from asking on #osm. For example my local one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5978482863 https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pna indicates the taging has a fair amount of useage. HTH Phil (trigpoint) On Wed, 2020-01-01 at 12:18 +, Dan Glover wrote: > Please forgive me if this is has been debated previously - I'm new > here > and having trouble finding a searchable archive for this list. > > A local mapper has added an Amazon "Hub Locker", tagged as > amenity=post_box. This causes it to flag as an anomaly when > comparing > against Royal Mail data. My view is this is not a "post box" since > it > forms part of delivery rather than collection arrangements. > > However I can see there may be some benefit in mapping such > facilities, > albeit anyone wanting to use it will need to make advance > arrangements > with Amazon and chose from a list of locations. This is a different > situation to Royal Mail where there is no official "post box finder" > and > one is at liberty to use any convenient box at any time. Searching > the > OSM Wiki doesn't seem to provide any specific guidance but hints > that > Amazon might be persuaded to contribute the locations directly, > since > they are apparently both consumers and contributors to OSM. > > Arguably parcel drop-off points for Hermes and so forth might be > suitable for inclusion, though they're not a stand-alone feature but > part of facilities at a premises and again require advance action by > the > user to select . > > Is there existing policy/guidance/consensus and if not, what is the > best > way to proceed? > > > Dan > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
Please forgive me if this is has been debated previously - I'm new here and having trouble finding a searchable archive for this list. A local mapper has added an Amazon "Hub Locker", tagged as amenity=post_box. This causes it to flag as an anomaly when comparing against Royal Mail data. My view is this is not a "post box" since it forms part of delivery rather than collection arrangements. However I can see there may be some benefit in mapping such facilities, albeit anyone wanting to use it will need to make advance arrangements with Amazon and chose from a list of locations. This is a different situation to Royal Mail where there is no official "post box finder" and one is at liberty to use any convenient box at any time. Searching the OSM Wiki doesn't seem to provide any specific guidance but hints that Amazon might be persuaded to contribute the locations directly, since they are apparently both consumers and contributors to OSM. Arguably parcel drop-off points for Hermes and so forth might be suitable for inclusion, though they're not a stand-alone feature but part of facilities at a premises and again require advance action by the user to select . Is there existing policy/guidance/consensus and if not, what is the best way to proceed? Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 11:00, David Woolley wrote: The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what is allowable. So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to discover if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map renders it. If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. Otherwise, why call it the "Standard" map? It is rather more than a demonstrator, it is used in many places for actual use, see for example: https://www.plotaroute.com/routeplanner Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 07:13, Martin Wynne wrote: However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a routable way superimposed over it, in darker brown. That's tagging for the renderer, which you should not do. If you map a highway as an area, you should not also map it as a line. It is up to the router to deal with that. If you double map, there is no incentive for routers to deal with areas properly. It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are doing. The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what is allowable. It is a combination of a technology demonstrator and a background map to assist mappers in placing other features. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 09:21, Warin wrote: OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, sport=cricket_nets etc) So what is the significance of having proposed changes, voting, etc.? There must be a set of accepted tags somewhere? As opposed to any tags I care to invent as I go along? One I could use a lot is barrier=broken_stile. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/20 18:13, Martin Wynne wrote: On 01/01/2020 05:11, Warin wrote: I would map the area around the road as landuse=highway. I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it supports the use of the farm it is not a field. Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a routable way superimposed over it, in darker brown. It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are doing. So I seem to have answered my own question, thanks all for the replies. OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, sport=cricket_nets etc) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
