Funny, I thought a typo was a "mispelling", not a change in use or change of tag. natural=gras fair enough, but actually changing any subtle definitions of what a mapper actually meant by the difference between tags cannot be done by "an armchair mapper" as someone put it.
What really pees me off (OK I've not been around for a while but the fact remains), and many others here is that it was not previously discussed before this started. It's like changing a country leader without checking with the public is it's ok to do so. Doesn't happen in a democratic society, which OSM embodies. On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Dudley Ibbett <[email protected]>wrote: > I suspect mapping meadows is a job for "experts". I tried asking one and > was told there are no "natural" meadows in the UK and meadow is a > "landuse". Probably time to find another expert. To this extent, for most > mappers natural=meadow and landuse=meadow would certainly be > interchangable. If however people could avoid using meadow just because > there is a horse in the field this would be good. > > If a mass edit removes information (i.e. the type of meadow) then I > wouldn't be happy if this was done to my work. Discussing such edits with > the local community would seem the best approach. > > More detailed mapping of the rural landscape does seem to be increasing so > perhaps a GB guidance page on rural mapping with GB examples would be a > good idea if a consensus can be found. > > Regards > > Dudley > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:57:10 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags > > Just to take take the conversation into another orbit simultaneously, I'd > like to clarify Tom's remarks about natural=wood and landuse=forest being > interchangeable in the UK. I always tag landuse=forest where aerial > imagery shows a regular pattern of tree spacing which is a good indicator > of planting following the wiki guideline for forest as being "Managed > forest or woodland plantation" to differentiate from naturally spaced > trees. Without surveying it's difficult to ascertain the "managed" bit > though > > Regards > > Brian > > > On 25 April 2013 14:19, Tom Chance <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can sympathise with some of what Jerry, John and Frederik have said here. > > There is undoubtedly a lot of slightly inappropriate tagging in the > database, meaning that serious use of the data often requires a lot of > cleaning up. I went around Southwark changing lots of land uses but based > on surveys and where it was clearly wrong, so that I could do some analysis > and make nice maps of green spaces in the borough. It used to be the case > that landuse=recreation_ground was _the_ way that we all tagged any green > space that wasn't a park. I routinely change these to landuse=grass when I > come across them these days, unless they really are recreation grounds. I > wouldn't want to be held back by having to divine (or enquire about) the > intention of the original editor each time! > > It's also annoying when the tag Jerry is looking for, according to the > wiki, is "natural=grassland" not "natural=grass" as you would expect: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass > > Also the tag "natural=meadow" has been merged into "landuse="meadow". > There is now another key "meadow=agricultural/perpetual" (oh joy) to > distinguish between managed and unmanaged meadow, or what used to be the > natural/landuse split! > > There is, in general, a longstanding confusion about natural/landuse. The > natural=wood/landuse=forest use is pretty interchangeable across the UK, so > that we can only really treat them as equivalent and meaning "some trees". > > The problem that John, Jerry and I have all run into is the downside of a > free tagging system without a mechanism to iron these wrinkles out. We can > only really shrug our shoulders and accept that the data is really patchy > in terms of coverage and appropriate tagging, and do our best to improve it > after discussion. Incidentally, if you want to see a real basket case of a > key, look at the values in Taginfo for the building key! > > As Frederik said, it is best to discuss ideas for large scale corrections > on a mailing list first. That way these issues come out and can be > discussed before the edits, clean-up strategies can be improved, and people > don't get upset at mistaken edits no matter how good the intentions. > > John, I would suggest that you inspect each natural=grass object on a case > by case basis to try and determine which of these it best fits: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass > > Regards, > Tom > > > On 25 April 2013 13:59, sk53.osm <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why do you assume that landuse=grass is more correct than natural=grass. > This is precisely the problem I have with your edits. If I use natural=* > for something someone comes and changes it to landuse=* which is not what I > meant. > > I ONLY use landuse=grass for amenity grassland (mainly in cities) which > would otherwise not be mapped. I would never use landuse=grass for > grassland in a farm or a nature reserve, or on a sports pitch (we have a > perfectly good surface=* for that). Unfortunately many people have used > landuse=grass indiscriminately (for instance for farmland in Holland > http://osm.org/go/0E6w0ZK-- and here in > Lancashire<http://osm.org/go/evhgKyE>(the area around Garstang shows wholly > inappropriate use of landuse=meadow > too). It seems that people prefer the green colour rendering for these over > the brown for farmland. I am unaware that landuse=farmland only refers to > arable. > > I don't know if you have heard of places like the Steppes & the Pampas, > the American Plains, > or the Serengeti, but there do exist large areas of the world covered by > grasses which are natural! > > You are not the only remote mapper to do this kind of change, xybot zapped > one of my natural=grass tags. > > Obviously I will now have to make my intentions absolutely explict with > notes etc., which rather defeats the point of tags. Perhaps I should use > SK53:natural=wood and then they won't get trampled on. > > The problem is that you are anxious for everything to be rendered in a > uniform manner, but you are not considering the many other use cases > particularly for landuse/landcover data. Continuous tidying up of tagging > in this area means that OSM is not currently a viable platform for serious > use for conservation > > Jerry > . > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, John Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just to be clear about what I am doing. > > I have been changing many what I consider typos. The majority have been > simple changes I started by cleaning up the lanes tag as I was doing work > getting lanes tagged correctly for the new CartoCSS and lanes=90 (where > they was not) and lanes=two made no sense. So I fixed each of these > worldwide looking at aerial imagery, (e.g. needed so leave a lanes=27 or > something for a massive border entrance) > > Again inspired by my designing new style at doing CartoCSS styling I > looked at other features that I has been doing, fountains, nightclubs, > religions, ice rinks, etc > > Then fixing some the nature, landuse tags, landuse=maedow to meadow, etc > within the same tagtype. > > Recently I wanted to tackle one of my biggest personal bugbears of > natural=grass which is (now was) tagged incorrectly and should be > landuse=grass. There where dozens/hundreds in my local area so I did the > whole UK. > > In case where I moved tag type (natural to landuse) I looked at if they > added anything to the corresponding tag. > > So if nature=grass already had landuse=park or something I didn't change > it over. > > Also I looked at the ways that had a name or had notes and decided if they > where due more investigation and if to edit them or not. To be honest most > didn't and it was quick and easy to check in JOSM when I highlight them all. > > I tried to explain myself in the change set notes. > > I like to think I have been responsible when doing this and think it > improves the database/map. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rovastar/edits?page=1 > > > > > > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:20:32 +0200 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags > > > > > Hi, > > > > On 04/24/2013 04:26 PM, John Baker wrote: > > > AFAIC these were typo edits and getting the whole database more > > > consistent. I have done dozens of changes to fix typos worldwide over > > > the past few weeks and it would be crazy to have lengthy discussions on > > > each one for multiple countries in multiple communication channels. > > > > If you don't have the time or the will to do it properly, then simply > > leave it be. > > > > The rule is that as soon as you make an edit where you don't look at the > > individual object you edit, it is a mechanical edit that has to be > > discussed beforehand. > > > > The reason for this rule is that it is too easy to introduce mistakes - > > what looks like a "typo" to one person could make sense to another. > > > > Assume that there's an object tagged landuse=forest *and* natural=meadow > > *and* it carries a note tag that explains exactly what the mapper meant > > by this. Someone simply looking for all natural=meadow and replacing > > them with landuse=meadow would overwrite the landuse=forest and not even > > see the note tag - he performs a mechanical edit that needs to be > > discussed beforehand (in order to minimize undesirable side effects). > > > > On the other hand, if someone were to manually go through all objects > > tagged natural=meadow, read potential note tags, look at the other tags > > and/or aerial imagery, and *then* change them to landuse=meadow, that > > would not be a mechanical edit. > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > -- > http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
