Re: [Tagging] [talk-au] How to tag a non-existent road
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Sam Vekemans wrote: > eye... i, i ie :0) > > But of course the landuse us 'unknown' by default. .. so what needs to be > done is to go around and find out what the actual landuse is. > ... of course there are voids there are voids all over the map of black > space. :) Sam, just like Canada, parts of Australia are like a huge void, short of mappers. So I drew in roads for a town I lived in 25 years ago, now at least 2000km from home. I can't speculate about land use except I removed the first landuse=residential polygon because it got in my way and was actually quite inaccurate, having been guessed from ancient satellite photos. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] highway=raceway?
Hello, highway=raceway has recently been added to the Map Features page because it had been added to the Mapnik rendering rules a few months earlier, but there is no information available about the tag. Could someone who knows the details create a wiki page for it? Is it intended for motorcar racing tracks only, or also for horse racing etc.? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=raceway?
2009/10/14 Ulf Möller : > Hello, > > highway=raceway has recently been added to the Map Features page because > it had been added to the Mapnik rendering rules a few months earlier, > but there is no information available about the tag. > > Could someone who knows the details create a wiki page for it? Is it > intended for motorcar racing tracks only, or also for horse racing etc.? I assume it's for vehicles, as the map features list horse racing and sports as leisure=track, sport=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=raceway?
John Smith schrieb: > 2009/10/14 Ulf Möller : >> Hello, >> >> highway=raceway has recently been added to the Map Features page because >> it had been added to the Mapnik rendering rules a few months earlier, >> but there is no information available about the tag. >> >> Could someone who knows the details create a wiki page for it? Is it >> intended for motorcar racing tracks only, or also for horse racing etc.? > > I assume it's for vehicles, as the map features list horse racing and > sports as leisure=track, sport=* Hmmm, highway=raceway sounds pretty strange. I've only heard the term racetrack (or maybe B.E. circuit) before, e.g. Suzuki motorcycles uses (used?) the advertising slogan "Own the racetrack". What's the benefit of highway=raceway over leisure=track, sport=motor then? Anyway, if a motorcycle / car racetrack was meant, the tag is pretty badly chosen ... Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé : >> Joseph > In my opinion, the tag "landuse=military" should only be used for specificly > military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. > Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I > don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can > it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential > area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary). > Gilles might be true for residential and forest (still if it is a small forest could IMHO be as well inside the residential area), but there is other examples where e.g. forest or lake or railway-area or sth. else is inside another landuse, thus being part of it. Think of parks, a lake in the forest, a forest in a nature reserve, a forest in a military area, ... If it is not part of it, it has to be excluded by the use of a multipolygon-relation. cheers, Martin PS: What about continuing this discussion only in tagging-ML? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=raceway?
John Smith wrote: > I assume it's for vehicles, as the map features list horse racing and > sports as leisure=track, sport=* > I think it's for all types: motor,horse, dog, snails etc. I see leisure=track, sport=* as the area of the whole site whilst highway=raceway is the actual track that the race is on. I'm not entirely happy about raceway as a term, I prefer racetrack. I think it's an American term ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=raceway?
2009/10/14 Dave F. : > John Smith wrote: >> I assume it's for vehicles, as the map features list horse racing and >> sports as leisure=track, sport=* >> > I think it's for all types: motor,horse, dog, snails etc. > > I see leisure=track, sport=* as the area of the whole site whilst > highway=raceway is the actual track that the race is on. > > I'm not entirely happy about raceway as a term, I prefer racetrack. I > think it's an American term I'm not advocating this, and they seem to be synomious terms, a track and a raceway, to me at least are the same thing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=raceway?
John Smith wrote: > 2009/10/14 Dave F. : > >> John Smith wrote: >> >>> I assume it's for vehicles, as the map features list horse racing and >>> sports as leisure=track, sport=* >>> >>> >> I think it's for all types: motor,horse, dog, snails etc. >> >> I see leisure=track, sport=* as the area of the whole site whilst >> highway=raceway is the actual track that the race is on. >> >> I'm not entirely happy about raceway as a term, I prefer racetrack. I >> think it's an American term >> > > I'm not advocating this, and they seem to be synomious terms, a track > and a raceway, to me at least are the same thing. > Advocating what? The naming or the fact I see it as two entities? There definitely needs to be a distinction in the tagging to allow for different renders. The actual track they run on needs to be shown because, for horse racing in the UK, the site is often on common/public access land with rights of way across it. Knowing where the track is is a guide to navigation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=raceway?
2009/10/14 Dave F. : > Advocating what? The naming or the fact I see it as two entities? Two very similarly named tags that don't seem to be distinct enough unless you read the wiki, if that's what it comes down to. > There definitely needs to be a distinction in the tagging to allow for > different renders. I agree, but I'm not sure highway=raceway is descriptive enough to be used for greyhound racing as an example. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Anthony wrote: > I've done some tagging of some different methods of tagging strip > malls under the current (and slightly extended) Karlsruhe Schema. > Unfortunately, Mapnik hasn't gotten around to rendering all the tiles > yet, so I'll wait until later to reveal them. Okay, here we go: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.07859&lon=-82.506151&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF The northernmost building is tagged by giving every single unit its own point. Just south of that I tagged the building with units "14445, 14443, 14441. 14425. 14407. 14405. 14401" with addr:housenumber=14401-14445. South of that I tagged the building with an interpolation from 14341 to 14391. Finally, the southernmost building is tagged addr:housenumber=14301;14303;14309;14313;14317;14339. South and north of the buildings, and across the street, I put three more Karlsruhe Schema interpolations next to the highway: 14001-14399, 14501-14899, and 14000-14898, respectively. The northnernmost building is the only one mapped strictly correctly according to the Karlsruhe Schema. It suffers from the disadvantage that when units get renumbered or split, no address location will be found. Also, it is extremely tedious, and only possible because I found a handout from the property management (which arguably is a copyright violation to use?). The second building was easier to tag. It doesn't render very well right now though, and probably will never render well. Makes geocoding relatively easy though. The third building looks the best with the current rendering, and will geocode just fine with any software which works under the current Karlsruhe Schema. I would recommend it for tagging of buildings in this type of situation. It wouldn't work quite as well on the first building, and it doesn't capture quite as much information as the way I tagged the first building, though. And it's technically incorrect, because it includes "housenumber"s that don't exist. Even if one had the individual unit numbers, I still think the range information should be included. This could be done by adding nodes for the other units but keeping the way. The fourth building was an attempt to extend the Karlsruhe Schema to allow for information about which "housenumber"s were valid and which were invalid, without resorting to tagging individual units of the building. It renders terribly right now, and I'm not quite sure how it could be rendered better. Geocoders could work with it well with simple extensions. The way across the street is tagged with Tiger-like information, using the Karlsruhe Schema. The ways just north and south of the right side of the street are also done with the same. I left out the block of addresses assigned to the four buildings I mapped, but this leaves a problem. When those reserved addresses get used, geocoders are going to have no clue of even their approximate location. I suppose I could include *another* interpolation, overlapping the other one, to handle that case, but this would likely be confusing. Comments appreciated. If we can come to a consensus about which of these is the best solution, that'd be wonderful. Otherwise, I'll probably just start using the method used by the 14341-14391 (third) building, since that already works well with the renderers and likely works with the geocoders as well, except for the (IMO minor) issue that it can't tell people when an address is invalid (they can/should use the USPS website for that, which unfortunately uses proprietary data so we can't export it, but contains way more accurate information than we'd ever hope to have - they're the ones delivering the mail, so they're going to be the first to know when an address becomes valid/invalid). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] schools
Because it is likely to be useful to my local authority in a real world project, I am considering adding some tags to schools to classify them, something like this: operator=Somewhereshire County Council school:level=early|first|nursery|infant|junior|primary|prep|secondary|tertiary|special|referral school:status=independent|c_of_e_aided|c_of_e_voluntary_controlled|community|foundation|inter_church_aided|non_denominational |roman_catholic_aided I hope operator is largely uncontroversial as the operator tag is already widely used in other contexts, though I'm sure someone will find the need to argue about it. school:level is describing the kind of school: mostly corresponding to age group, but special, for example is about special needs students, and age groups overlap and are sometimes fluid, so it's a bit more than just age. These are terms used in the UK: I am sure there will be additional terms from many countries, some of which may overlap and some may not. (Incidentally, it is hard to tell pure age ranges from the notices outside schools and other non-copyright sources. Where age ranges are fixed and the info obtainable, no problem adding it, but I'm concentrating on what I can get from surveys here). The list above is what my local authority uses. school:status is about a bit more than the operator. Schools in the UK have complex governance: the County or Unitary Authority is responsible for education, but schools may be provided by the local authority or indeed central government but run by some other body which wants a part in indoctrinating children, including churches of various kinds. I don't know whether such nuances exist in other countries, I'd be interested to hear. Again, such information is usually available from the notice boards outside schools. The ones I've listed above are those of my local authority: I guess there may be some others I don't have even in the UK - for example I'm sure there must be muslim aided schools, but the principle follows. One might argue that the denomination tag is appropriate, as per churches and cemeteries, for example: school:status=religious_aided religion=christian denomination=church_of_england so the status is simpler but broken down further in some cases. So, has anyone used similar tags already, and if so, what are they? I have no strong feelings about what I would call such tags if they haven't already been invented, so I shall let the argument rage over what they should be called and other aspects which will no doubt come up, and then use whatever seems to be the consensus or majority view after a few days. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
Thanks for creating a comprehensive sample map.For the case of mapping this type of multi-tenant building, I would be comfortable with either of the middle case tagging formats as being both easy to create, maintain, and useful for navigation. >The ways just north and south of the right side > of the street are also done with the same. I left out the block of > addresses assigned to the four buildings I mapped, but this leaves a > problem. When those reserved addresses get used, geocoders are going > to have no clue of even their approximate location. I suppose I could > include *another* interpolation, overlapping the other one, to handle > that case, but this would likely be confusing. Extending the Karlsruhe Schema concept again, the Tiger Interpolation on the right side of the street could be a single way that covers the building. According to the Karlsruhe Schema, the search starts with addr:housenumber tags for nodes and buildings, then falls back to interpolation ways for anything not specifically labeled. That would handle the case of the missing address block being assigned or not surveyed. (Yes, it's ugly because there's an imaginary line) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
(Sorry to break the thread, I'm just subscribed and wanted to give a thought on the "not overlapping landuse, and multipolygon model advantages and drawbacks" ) Emilie said : > Landuse should be exclusive by definition. As > someone pointed out before in a separate message, this is trying to be a > work around the fact that to some extent landuse is broken in some cases. > We would like to avoid having two super imposed landuse as much as possible. That is to say : using more multipolygon relation to model "holes" or, in this case, landuse included in landuse. I've been a great fan for a few time of those (advanced) multipolygon for solving the hole case. (Hole case which was, remember, the first solved problem by multipolygon relation) At that time (I think ?) it was created because holes where nothing, but as more and more landuse/natural/... tags are created, we could imagine an osm database where not even a single area is "nothing". In the holes continuity, it as been proposed that an area representing something inside another area would still be part of a multipolygon relation but with it's own tags. this sounds great, requesting the surface of the big area is strait forward, rendering become easy (no "which one is over which one"), such a puzzle makes it easy to find problems, etc. But, this becomes harder and harder for the mapper. A big forest containing thousands lakes ? a landuse=residential containing park, cimetary, etc. ? I fear not every one is gone a make the effort. Emilie : >Anyway some of the comments you are making are making sense but it is just >relying on the renderer to get it right. + somewhere else on talk or dev or I don't remember : "we don't want to create priority hierarchies among landuse/natural" And after all, is it at all needed ? In the "area inside area case" (not the partially overlapping areas case) We can resonably imagine that if a mapper has added such an area inside another, then either : - they can be both (a military area and a forest) - they can't be both (a lake and a forest) Maybe if we just define/explain/(do our best not to create same key incompatibility, juste like this boundary=military propose to replace the ambiguous landuse=military for some cases) Same for natural, then what we've left ? A lake inside a forest, is not a forest A cimetary inside a residential is not a residential etc. Let's put the burden on computer programs and free mappers : why not, instead of the layer=* "tag for the rendering" patch, consider that any area inside another should be automatically not considered as part of the overlapping area (thus automatically constructing "holes") ? -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] schools
I think I'd prefer school:type rather than school:status, and I'd prpbably separate out the denominations to another tag. And please avoid that mess of underscores in c_of_e - a recipe for typos if ever I saw one. Richard On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:30 PM, David Earl wrote: > Because it is likely to be useful to my local authority in a real world > project, I am considering adding some tags to schools to classify them, > something like this: > > operator=Somewhereshire County Council > > school:level=early|first|nursery|infant|junior|primary|prep|secondary|tertiary|special|referral > > school:status=independent|c_of_e_aided|c_of_e_voluntary_controlled|community|foundation|inter_church_aided|non_denominational > |roman_catholic_aided > > I hope operator is largely uncontroversial as the operator tag is > already widely used in other contexts, though I'm sure someone will find > the need to argue about it. > > school:level is describing the kind of school: mostly corresponding to > age group, but special, for example is about special needs students, and > age groups overlap and are sometimes fluid, so it's a bit more than just > age. These are terms used in the UK: I am sure there will be additional > terms from many countries, some of which may overlap and some may not. > (Incidentally, it is hard to tell pure age ranges from the notices > outside schools and other non-copyright sources. Where age ranges are > fixed and the info obtainable, no problem adding it, but I'm > concentrating on what I can get from surveys here). The list above is > what my local authority uses. > > school:status is about a bit more than the operator. Schools in the UK > have complex governance: the County or Unitary Authority is responsible > for education, but schools may be provided by the local authority or > indeed central government but run by some other body which wants a part > in indoctrinating children, including churches of various kinds. I don't > know whether such nuances exist in other countries, I'd be interested to > hear. Again, such information is usually available from the notice > boards outside schools. The ones I've listed above are those of my local > authority: I guess there may be some others I don't have even in the UK > - for example I'm sure there must be muslim aided schools, but the > principle follows. > > One might argue that the denomination tag is appropriate, as per > churches and cemeteries, for example: > school:status=religious_aided > religion=christian > denomination=church_of_england > so the status is simpler but broken down further in some cases. > > So, has anyone used similar tags already, and if so, what are they? > > I have no strong feelings about what I would call such tags if they > haven't already been invented, so I shall let the argument rage over > what they should be called and other aspects which will no doubt come > up, and then use whatever seems to be the consensus or majority view > after a few days. > > David > > ___ > 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] schools
I think the operator tag needs some careful documentation if you're going to use it this way. Take this local (to me) school as an example www.stjosephsbrackenridge.qld.edu.au I'll be mapping it's area soon. This is a Catholic Primary School. If I used operator tag, I'd put Catholic Church or similar, not QLD Education Department. The building is on church owned grounds, the church pays the staff. They do accept some assistance from the government (I think), but it is a private school. To me, the Education Department is the certifying/controlling body, not the operator of this school. They would be the operator of government run schools, however. It may be that you're talking about a different situation where the County Council actually owns and runs the schools, but sub-lets some of the work to other bodies. But if you're just talking about who is the certifying body for the school, I think operator is the wrong term - it's likely to cause confusion. Stephen 2009/10/15 David Earl : > operator=Somewhereshire County Council > school:level=early|first|nursery|infant|junior|primary|prep|secondary|tertiary|special|referral > school:status=independent|c_of_e_aided|c_of_e_voluntary_controlled|community|foundation|inter_church_aided|non_denominational > |roman_catholic_aided > > I hope operator is largely uncontroversial as the operator tag is > already widely used in other contexts, though I'm sure someone will find > the need to argue about it. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > actually I think that instead of discussing interpolation with > regularlyskipped numbers you could map explicitly the nodes of the > real numbers, thus getting a high-precision map instead of this > interpolation-crab, that is much less useful then an actual accurate > position ;-) > > just my 2 cents. > > cheers, > Martin Sounds good Martin. I have about 3000-5000 houses to tag, I'll tag the beginning and ending house addresses, on each street, if you'll tag the 15-20 individual houses in between. They're in the satellite images, so it shouldn't be a problem. Just kidding, but hopefully you'll get the point that it's a pretty labor intensive job, and interpolation, with an appropriate skip factor would make the job a lot more likely to eventually reach completion. In the area I'm working, most of the lots on these streets have fairly uniform width at the street, so interpolation will rarely be in error by a full physical street address. Some of this has been said before, but unfortunately this subject got hijacked to something about comparing Tiger vs. Karlsruhe schemae and you have to go back a few days to find the discussion that truly relates to the subject of the thread. Based on Richard Bullock's suggestion, I have added the numeric increment to the definition for the tag addr:interpolation=*, and additional information under Using interpolation on the Key:addr wiki page. I'll start tagging street addresses this way as soon as time permits. I noticed that Mapnik already renders the way properly, although there is no way to verify the increment. OSMARender apparently detects an invalid interpolation value and renders the end point nodes, but not the way, at present. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
Randy Thomson wrote: > Sounds good Martin. I have about 3000-5000 houses to tag, I'll tag the > beginning and ending house addresses, on each street, if you'll tag > the 15-20 individual houses in between. They're in the satellite > images, so it shouldn't be a problem. > Oops, don't want to get accused of exagerating (again). There are really only six or seven interpolated houses on the blocks where I'm going to be adding addresses, because the block number changes in the middle of the physical block, where the developer decided not to add a cross street. Still, a significant increase in effort to individually tag, rather than use interpolation. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
