Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Dave F]

I see you point, but boundary is always preferable if possible. 
Geographical Suburbs appears ot be the main stumbling block.


I haven't studied Alex's edits in detail but from his diary he appears 
to be duplicating; adding both boundary & is_in to the same entities. 
Superfluous.


Dave F.

On 17/08/2016 07:55, David Woolley wrote:

On 17/08/16 00:57, Dave F wrote:

As far as I can see is_in:* is used for the same things as boundaries,
but is less efficient & prone to errors.

Are you aware of any utilities that use is_in:*?

To me, the value of is_in is that it allows for cases where there is n 
usable source for the actual boundary, but local people will still 
know on which side of the boundary they lie.


___
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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

I have already brought this to the attention of DWG. SomeoneElse has
been attempting to moderate the tone on a couple of the changeset
discussions. 

No idea if it is permanent, but alexkemp has switched his focus to
houses/numbers in the last couple of days.

//colin 

On 2016-08-17 13:58, Walter Nordmann wrote:

> No, alex has never been blocked: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp
> 
> please contact DWG
> 
> regards
> Walter
> 
> ___
> 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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Walter Nordmann]

No, alex has never been blocked: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp

please contact DWG

regards
Walter


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Every account that has ever been blocked has a link from the profile called 
“Active blocks”.

--
Andrew

From: Paul Sladen <o...@paul.sladen.org>
Sent: 17 August 2016 11:04:20
To: Will Phillips
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Will Phillips wrote:
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> > "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be
> > able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest
> > in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned
> unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.

The changes are one thing; but the automated non-responses are going
to be a bigger issue in resolving this this has it disrupts
the project by preventing discussion.

I'm wondering if the 'alexkemp' has previously received the
block-uploads-until-messages-are-read flag in the past?
If so perhaps a strong encouragement is required?

-Paul


___
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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Paul Sladen]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Will Phillips wrote:
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> > "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be 
> > able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest 
> > in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned 
> unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.

The changes are one thing; but the automated non-responses are going
to be a bigger issue in resolving this this has it disrupts
the project by preventing discussion.

I'm wondering if the 'alexkemp' has previously received the
block-uploads-until-messages-are-read flag in the past?
If so perhaps a strong encouragement is required?

-Paul


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[David Woolley]

On 17/08/16 00:57, Dave F wrote:

As far as I can see is_in:* is used for the same things as boundaries,
but is less efficient & prone to errors.

Are you aware of any utilities that use is_in:*?

To me, the value of is_in is that it allows for cases where there is n 
usable source for the actual boundary, but local people will still know 
on which side of the boundary they lie.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Dave F]

On 16/08/2016 17:28, Colin Smale wrote:


Dave, if the is_in values are based on common usage rather than 
administrative reality, then it would actually be correct to leave 
them unchanged.




If a better way of doing something is created then the old methods 
become redundant & should be removed for the reasons Andy Allan 
mentioned in a previous post in this thread. Sarah Hoffmann's reply in 
the Talk thread I posted clearly says is_in:* "is unnecessary"


The point I am trying to make, is that I see a need to support a 
variety of addressing/location systems, which are all correct in their 
own way, but useful for different things.




As far as I can see is_in:* is used for the same things as boundaries, 
but is less efficient & prone to errors.


Are you aware of any utilities that use is_in:*?

Cheers
Dave F.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/08/2016 21:57, Colin Smale wrote:


Having just received another "too busy mapping" response to a 
changeset comment I have requested DWG to give alexkemp a 0-minute 
block to remind him of his duty to engage with the community in a 
proper way.




We (the Data Working Group) normally use 0-hour blocks as a "message 
that has to be read" for people who may have misconfigured email, to 
make sure that messages really are being seen by the mapper concerned.  
I normally end up writing a sentence along the lines of "... you'll be 
able to continue mapping immediately after reading this" just to make it 
clear that it's not a block as such (temporary or permanent).


I don't believe that a 0-hour block is appropriate in this case as 
there's no evidence that messages aren't being read (actions would 
suggest that they are).  Following up on previous messages to Alex I've 
added a discussion comment to 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41481784 asking for the "out of 
office" messages not to be sent.


Obviously what we want to happen is to get everyone's engagement with 
how and why boundaries have been mapped as they are so far, and I've 
suggested that the talk-gb list is probably the best place for that 
(there's also the East Mids pub meetup in Derby next week, where a 
number of the protagonists will be present).  The more general point is 
(and this is a line that appears in many of the DWG messages that I 
send) that OSM is a collaborative project, and we need to work together 
to create the best map.  This doesn't mean that "the way that it is done 
now" is always right, but it does mean listening to other people, and a 
discussion putting across all points of view needs to be had.  It's 
worth pointing out that the discussion so far has certainly been useful 
to me, not least in learning that "is_in" is processed by Nominatim (to 
an extent at least - see 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076596.html 
et al).


On a more general point one of the things that is often a surprise and a 
frustration to people and companies coming into OSM anew (especially 
companies) is that everything moves quite slowly - it's about creating a 
Canaletto rather than Sid from down the road applying a couple of coats 
of Dulux.  I suspect that that the speed perception might be a factor 
here too.


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

Having just received another "too busy mapping" response to a changeset
comment I have requested DWG to give alexkemp a 0-minute block to remind
him of his duty to engage with the community in a proper way. 

Colin

On 2016-08-16 14:55, Dave F wrote:

> +1
> 
> Also his use of is_in:* is also redundant when the boundary tag is used,
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> On 16/08/2016 13:25, Andy Allan wrote: On 16 August 2016 at 13:11, Will 
> Phillips  wrote:
> 
> Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
> consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that tagging
> area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in this case. I
> do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to area:ha or
> area:hectares? No, they should be removed.
> 
> While it seems like tags like this do little harm, they encourage
> future importers to follow the same path, and our database ends up
> full of cruft. It's also off-putting to mappers, who might be scared
> off from fixing the geometry of features since they don't know how to
> recalculate the area.
> 
> There's no good reason to keep them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> ___
> 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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

Dave, if the is_in values are based on common usage rather than
administrative reality, then it would actually be correct to leave them
unchanged. 

The point I am trying to make, is that I see a need to support a variety
of addressing/location systems, which are all correct in their own way,
but useful for different things. In order to do that we need additional
tagging systems, otherwise people will try to force-fit (for example)
postal addresses (postcode sectors, post towns etc) onto administrative
boundaries and the result will be neither fish nor fowl. 

Is Rochester in Kent? Most people would say yes. "Where am I?" (powered
by Nominatim) returns:

* 

Troy Town, Rochester, Medway, South East, England, United Kingdom [1] 

Which while administratively correct (except for Troy Town which is a
suburb, modelled in OSM as a simple node without a defined boundary), is
not particularly useful (IMHO of course) - a more typical human would
expect "Rochester, Kent, England, United Kingdom" 

I am glad you asked about Nominatim's algorithm. I suspect there is an
element of black magic involved. I hope they do not keep it too secret
in order not to encourage "tagging for the renderer" but some insights
would definitely be useful. Then we want to think what we actually
expect Nominatim to return for reverse geocoding. Postal address?
Administrative divisions? Local perception? 

Colin 

On 2016-08-16 17:37, Dave F wrote:

> I queried Alex's rational:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062
> 
> As I noted is_in tags are hard-coded so become inaccurate if boundaries 
> change.
> 
> I also asked about Nominatim's search criteria on the Talk forum:
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076592.html
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> On 16/08/2016 16:01, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
> In the specific case of the UK, I am not convinced that is_in has no value at 
> all. This is because of the huge divergence between people's perceptions and 
> administrative reality. If you ask someone to give their location/current 
> address, they will most likely refer to the postal addressing system, which 
> is completely unconnected to administrative boundaries. They will also tend 
> to add a level of detail to the address which the postal system does not 
> require, but tolerates. The admin boundaries represent the legal status, but 
> it will be more relevant to most people's minds if Nominatim et al. recognise 
> an alternative place hierarchy. I think place=* polygons/nodes may already be 
> used, but the results sometimes seem to be an awful jumble of admin 
> boundaries and place-based info. The fact that large swathes of the 
> countryside are unparished (i.e. no admin_level=10 polygon with a name) makes 
> the quality/accuracy of the results variable according to the location. Alex 
> Kemp is
experimenting with introducing artificial admin_level=10 polygons for these 
unparished areas with names based on historical data to help Nominatim which 
IMHO is not the way to do it. Parishes are useless for navigation/addressing 
anyway. 
> 
> Bottom line is that locations have multiple ways of being defined, and this 
> is not currently embraced by OSM which wants a nice simple address+polygon 
> hierarchy. For many countries that works, but not for the UK. It is possible 
> that the is_in data can give an alternative perspective. BUT it needs to be 
> kept distinct from the admin boundaries, which are a matter of law, and it 
> needs to give complete coverage of the country, which at present is probably 
> not the case. 
> 
> Colin
> 
> On 2016-08-16 14:55, Dave F wrote: 
> +1
> 
> Also his use of is_in:* is also redundant when the boundary tag is used,
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> On 16/08/2016 13:25, Andy Allan wrote: On 16 August 2016 at 13:11, Will 
> Phillips  wrote:
> 
> Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
> consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that tagging
> area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in this case. I
> do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to area:ha or
> area:hectares? No, they should be removed.
> 
> While it seems like tags like this do little harm, they encourage
> future importers to follow the same path, and our database ends up
> full of cruft. It's also off-putting to mappers, who might be scared
> off from fixing the geometry of features since they don't know how to
> recalculate the area.
> 
> There's no good reason to keep them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Dave F]

I queried Alex's rational:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062

As I noted is_in tags are hard-coded so become inaccurate if boundaries 
change.


I also asked about Nominatim's search criteria on the Talk forum:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076592.html

Dave F.


On 16/08/2016 16:01, Colin Smale wrote:


In the specific case of the UK, I am not convinced that is_in has no 
value at all. This is because of the huge divergence between people's 
perceptions and administrative reality. If you ask someone to give 
their location/current address, they will most likely refer to the 
postal addressing system, which is completely unconnected to 
administrative boundaries. They will also tend to add a level of 
detail to the address which the postal system does not require, but 
tolerates. The admin boundaries represent the legal status, but it 
will be more relevant to most people's minds if Nominatim et al. 
recognise an alternative place hierarchy. I think place=* 
polygons/nodes may already be used, but the results sometimes seem to 
be an awful jumble of admin boundaries and place-based info. The fact 
that large swathes of the countryside are unparished (i.e. no 
admin_level=10 polygon with a name) makes the quality/accuracy of the 
results variable according to the location. Alex Kemp is experimenting 
with introducing artificial admin_level=10 polygons for these 
unparished areas with names based on historical data to help Nominatim 
which IMHO is not the way to do it. Parishes are useless for 
navigation/addressing anyway.


Bottom line is that locations have multiple ways of being defined, and 
this is not currently embraced by OSM which wants a nice simple 
address+polygon hierarchy. For many countries that works, but not for 
the UK. It is possible that the is_in data can give an alternative 
perspective. BUT it needs to be kept distinct from the admin 
boundaries, which are a matter of law, and it needs to give complete 
coverage of the country, which at present is probably not the case.


Colin

On 2016-08-16 14:55, Dave F wrote:


+1

Also his use of is_in:* is also redundant when the boundary tag is used,

Dave F.

On 16/08/2016 13:25, Andy Allan wrote:
On 16 August 2016 at 13:11, Will Phillips > wrote:



Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that tagging
area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in this case. I
do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to area:ha or
area:hectares?

No, they should be removed.

While it seems like tags like this do little harm, they encourage
future importers to follow the same path, and our database ends up
full of cruft. It's also off-putting to mappers, who might be scared
off from fixing the geometry of features since they don't know how to
recalculate the area.

There's no good reason to keep them.

Thanks,
Andy

___
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


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

In the specific case of the UK, I am not convinced that is_in has no
value at all. This is because of the huge divergence between people's
perceptions and administrative reality. If you ask someone to give their
location/current address, they will most likely refer to the postal
addressing system, which is completely unconnected to administrative
boundaries. They will also tend to add a level of detail to the address
which the postal system does not require, but tolerates. The admin
boundaries represent the legal status, but it will be more relevant to
most people's minds if Nominatim et al. recognise an alternative place
hierarchy. I think place=* polygons/nodes may already be used, but the
results sometimes seem to be an awful jumble of admin boundaries and
place-based info. The fact that large swathes of the countryside are
unparished (i.e. no admin_level=10 polygon with a name) makes the
quality/accuracy of the results variable according to the location. Alex
Kemp is experimenting with introducing artificial admin_level=10
polygons for these unparished areas with names based on historical data
to help Nominatim which IMHO is not the way to do it. Parishes are
useless for navigation/addressing anyway. 

Bottom line is that locations have multiple ways of being defined, and
this is not currently embraced by OSM which wants a nice simple
address+polygon hierarchy. For many countries that works, but not for
the UK. It is possible that the is_in data can give an alternative
perspective. BUT it needs to be kept distinct from the admin boundaries,
which are a matter of law, and it needs to give complete coverage of the
country, which at present is probably not the case. 

Colin

On 2016-08-16 14:55, Dave F wrote:

> +1
> 
> Also his use of is_in:* is also redundant when the boundary tag is used,
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> On 16/08/2016 13:25, Andy Allan wrote: On 16 August 2016 at 13:11, Will 
> Phillips  wrote:
> 
> Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
> consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that tagging
> area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in this case. I
> do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to area:ha or
> area:hectares? No, they should be removed.
> 
> While it seems like tags like this do little harm, they encourage
> future importers to follow the same path, and our database ends up
> full of cruft. It's also off-putting to mappers, who might be scared
> off from fixing the geometry of features since they don't know how to
> recalculate the area.
> 
> There's no good reason to keep them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> ___
> 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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Dave F]

+1

Also his use of is_in:* is also redundant when the boundary tag is used,

Dave F.

On 16/08/2016 13:25, Andy Allan wrote:

On 16 August 2016 at 13:11, Will Phillips  wrote:


Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that tagging
area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in this case. I
do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to area:ha or
area:hectares?

No, they should be removed.

While it seems like tags like this do little harm, they encourage
future importers to follow the same path, and our database ends up
full of cruft. It's also off-putting to mappers, who might be scared
off from fixing the geometry of features since they don't know how to
recalculate the area.

There's no good reason to keep them.

Thanks,
Andy

___
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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Will Phillips]

On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in 
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also 
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry 
anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a 
changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:


"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be 
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest 
in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"


Any thoughts about the tagging?

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on 
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the 
established tagging [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134

 _



Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not 
consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that 
tagging area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in 
this case. I do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to 
area:ha or area:hectares?


Will

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Do we know how these values are calculated, for instance do they come from an 
external source?


--

Andrew



From: Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>
Sent: 15 August 2016 08:39
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with ref:hectares=* 
with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in hectares.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Just out of interest, are unincorporated areas in Australia tagged with 
boundary relations?


--

Andrew



From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: 15 August 2016 12:00
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Warin]

On 8/15/2016 7:03 PM, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi Will,

Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset 
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would 
have...


Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin boundary 
page [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries

On 2016-08-15 10:41, Will Phillips wrote:


Hi,

This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which 
we use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such 
administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my 
understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or 
they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary data harder to use. 
If I run a query to find which boundaries a node is within, I'd only 
expect real admin boundary areas to be returned. The user is adding 
designation tags (designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they 
aren't real, but this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have 
to check a secondary tag to find out whether a relation is a real 
civil parish or not.


The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and 
other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.


Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations 
covering the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such 
administrative unit has ever existed: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042


I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has 
turned unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.  I accept my 
initial comment suggesting that one of these relations should be 
deleted could have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel 
in justifies his aggressive responses since. I was frustrated at 
finding one of the these non-existent boundaries covering my local 
area with an inaccurate name.


Will

On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity 
in hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and 
also redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the 
geometry anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) 
via a changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:


"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too 
be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your 
interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"


Any thoughts about the tagging?

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on 
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from 
the established tagging [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134



He is active on his diary pages .. and they make entertaining reading 
and are sometimes informative.


_Area..._
Regarding the ref:hectares ... humm while the area might be calculated 
correctly for a 'flat' area .. most have slopes ... don't know if that 
is officially included in area calculations :) Probably not.


There does appear to be some demand for tagging areas .. e.g. Area_sq_m 
(8,164), area:ha (4,109) and others. Unfortunately the tag 'area' is a 
simple indication of a shape being rendered .. and it would be confusing 
to use it as a numerical value. Possibly there needs to be some 
provision/instruction on the OSMwiki for this?

_
__Parishes .. admin boundaries etc..._
Not me! I have not dabbled in this, other than fixing some that were 
broken and I had easy access to the data (not UK ones). Think Alex has a 
diary entry on it with his thinking... might be a place to indicate a 
different interpretation compared to his thoughts (in a polite manner)?


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

Hi Will, 

Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would
have... 

Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin boundary page
[2]. 

Colin 

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary 

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries 

On 2016-08-15 10:41, Will Phillips wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which we use 
> for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such administrative 
> unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my understanding is that 
> these are legal entities which either exist or they don't. Additionally, it 
> makes OSM boundary data harder to use. If I run a query to find which 
> boundaries a node is within, I'd only expect real admin boundary areas to be 
> returned. The user is adding designation tags (designation=non-civil_parish) 
> to indicate they aren't real, but this is undocumented and data users 
> shouldn't have to check a secondary tag to find out whether a relation is a 
> real civil parish or not.
> 
> The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and other 
> geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.
> 
> Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations covering the 
> whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such administrative unit has ever 
> existed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042
> 
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned 
> unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.  I accept my initial comment 
> suggesting that one of these relations should be deleted could have been 
> worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel in justifies his aggressive 
> responses since. I was frustrated at finding one of the these non-existent 
> boundaries covering my local area with an inaccurate name.
> 
> Will
> 
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
>> ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in 
>> hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also 
>> redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry anyway. 
>> When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a changeset 
>> discussion [1] I got the following response: 
>> 
>> "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able 
>> to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my 
>> mapping. -Alex Kemp" 
>> 
>> Any thoughts about the tagging? 
>> 
>> Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on another 
>> one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the established 
>> tagging [2]. 
>> 
>> Colin 
>> 
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409 
>> 
>> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Will Phillips]

Hi,

This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which we 
use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such 
administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my 
understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or 
they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary data harder to use. If I 
run a query to find which boundaries a node is within, I'd only expect 
real admin boundary areas to be returned. The user is adding designation 
tags (designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they aren't real, but 
this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have to check a secondary 
tag to find out whether a relation is a real civil parish or not.


The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and 
other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.


Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations covering 
the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such administrative unit 
has ever existed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042


I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned 
unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.  I accept my initial 
comment suggesting that one of these relations should be deleted could 
have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel in justifies his 
aggressive responses since. I was frustrated at finding one of the these 
non-existent boundaries covering my local area with an inaccurate name.


Will

On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in 
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also 
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry 
anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a 
changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:


"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be 
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest 
in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"


Any thoughts about the tagging?

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on 
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the 
established tagging [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134



___
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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

Hi, 

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry anyway.
When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a changeset
discussion [1] I got the following response: 

"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in
my mapping. -Alex Kemp" 

Any thoughts about the tagging? 

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the
established tagging [2]. 

Colin 

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409 

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb