[Tagging] Best practice regarding addr:housenumber and POIs
Hi I'm wondering what is best practice regarding tagging addr:housenumber and POIs, e.g. amenity=restaurant. Let's assume that on Mainstreet 10 there's a restaurant named Thai Wok. Should there be one node or two? One single node with the tags addr:street, addr:housenumber, amenity=restaurant and name=Thai Wok or two nodes, one with the addr:* tags and another with the POI tags? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Best practice regarding addr:housenumber and POIs
2009/10/15 Markus Lindholm : > Hi > > I'm wondering what is best practice regarding tagging addr:housenumber > and POIs, e.g. amenity=restaurant. > Let's assume that on Mainstreet 10 there's a restaurant named Thai > Wok. Should there be one node or two? > One single node with the tags addr:street, addr:housenumber, > amenity=restaurant and name=Thai Wok or two nodes, one with the addr:* > tags and another with the POI tags? > > Regards > Markus > One, I guess, it keeps it simple and easy to ensure that the all the data relating to that node are kept together. However, You could put together n nodes, connect a way between them, forming an area, and then tag the way. Allowing us to know how far along the street the restaurant stretches and if it maybe has a back door onto another street etc etc. (This is nice but not really necessary). Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Opinion poll - landuse orchard
Hi, please join the opinion poll about the landuse=orchard proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/orchard Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:50 AM, 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. I'll give it a try. Send me a list of the ways. I'll set up a script to automatically create the nodes, and I'll just move them into place if they're not lined up over the houses. Or if you want, I'll give you the script. > 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. Or even easier and more likely to reach completion without the "skip factor". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
2009/10/14 sly (sylvain letuffe) : > 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. no, this is not the case. Multipolygon says: the inner part is NOT part of the outer polygon. If it is part just don't put a multipolygon-relation (standard-case). > 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. no, this is a case to be solved continuously - usually if one polygon is entirely inside another the smaller one should be rendered above: this should be generally solved by the renderers. Also, it can be better in some cases not to use a solid fill but just an outline that is rendered above the fills. > 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. > And after all, is it at all needed ? let the mappers decide. > 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) well, even in the case lake inside a forest I'm not sure, if the forest stops where there is the lake. Probably you can consider the lake also part of the forest (when it's small), or to give a different example: elementary school inside a residential area. Usually those would be considered to be part of the residential area. > 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 ? amenity? Finally almost all tags can become areas. > A lake inside a forest, is not a forest sure? > A cimetary inside a residential is not a residential +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > well, even in the case lake inside a forest I'm not sure, if the > forest stops where there is the lake. Probably you can consider the > lake also part of the forest (when it's small), or to give a different > example: elementary school inside a residential area. Usually those > would be considered to be part of the residential area. > I disagree. A school site with it's buildings, playgrounds, sports fields etc can add up to a big area. Someone may want to do some calculations based on these areas. They should be as accurate as possible. I'm in the process of editing the existing residential areas in my town to go around these. It certainly makes a difference. > >> 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 ? >> > amenity? Finally almost all tags can become areas. > > >> A lake inside a forest, is not a forest >> > sure? > Yes > >> A cimetary inside a residential is not a residential >> > +1 > Then how can you include schools? Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Housenumber interpolation with regularlyskippednumbers
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:50 AM, 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. > > I'll give it a try. Send me a list of the ways. Alternatively, can you add a tag on the ways of "addr:inclusion=actual" (as opposed to "addr:inclusion=potential")? Then give me your username. I'll find the ways based on that tag. With this tag and 15-20 houses per way, I'm sure I can fix them faster than you can add them. This assumes of course that you've surveyed the way to make sure that every address is actually included, and that the endpoints are correct. If I come across two or three ways which have more houses than housenumbers, I'm stopping. Deal? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Best practice regarding addr:housenumber and POIs
2009/10/15 Peter Childs : > 2009/10/15 Markus Lindholm : >> Hi >> >> I'm wondering what is best practice regarding tagging addr:housenumber >> and POIs, e.g. amenity=restaurant. >> Let's assume that on Mainstreet 10 there's a restaurant named Thai >> Wok. Should there be one node or two? >> One single node with the tags addr:street, addr:housenumber, >> amenity=restaurant and name=Thai Wok or two nodes, one with the addr:* >> tags and another with the POI tags? >> >> Regards >> Markus >> > > One, I guess, it keeps it simple and easy to ensure that the all the > data relating to that node are kept together. > I guess the follow-up question then is: what if there are multiple POIs that have the same addr:housenumber? Should it be duplicated on all the POIs? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
2009/10/15 Dave F. : > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> well, even in the case lake inside a forest I'm not sure, if the >> forest stops where there is the lake. Probably you can consider the >> lake also part of the forest (when it's small), or to give a different >> example: elementary school inside a residential area. Usually those >> would be considered to be part of the residential area. >> > I disagree. A school site with it's buildings, playgrounds, sports > fields etc can add up to a big area. > Someone may want to do some calculations based on these areas. They > should be as accurate as possible. > I'm in the process of editing the existing residential areas in my town > to go around these. It certainly makes a difference. > Then how can you include schools? well, elementary schools belong to a residential area as well as a (not to big) convenience store that serves mostly this area or a pub. At least to "general residential areas" according to German law (BauNVO, WA = allgemeines Wohngebiet = general residential area). On the other hand, they would just exceptionally be allowed in "pure residential areas" (reines Wohngebiet, WR). For the lake in the forest: do you agree that someone would say: the lake (pond) is in the forest? Like a way in the forest, which doesn't have trees growing on it, but still is in the forest. It is not excluded. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Best practice regarding addr:housenumber and POIs
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Markus Lindholm wrote: > I guess the follow-up question then is: what if there are multiple > POIs that have the same addr:housenumber? Should it be duplicated on > all the POIs? If you're going to add a distinguishing address feature, such as "addr:suite=*", you probably should. Otherwise, if the POIs are all located in one building, and all have the same address, it's better (and maybe even easier) to tag the building rather than multiple points within the building, no? (If the POIs are in different buildings, have the same housenumber, and don't have any distinguishing address features...eww, that could be a problem.) Or should suite numbers be part of addr:housenumber? "5102 Belmere Pkwy Apt 2" gets housenumber='5102' or housenumber='5102 Apt 2'? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > well, elementary schools belong to a residential area as well as a > (not to big) convenience store that serves mostly this area or a pub. > At least to "general residential areas" according to German law > (BauNVO, WA = allgemeines Wohngebiet = general residential area). On > the other hand, they would just exceptionally be allowed in "pure > residential areas" (reines Wohngebiet, WR). > > For the lake in the forest: do you agree that someone would say: the > lake (pond) is in the forest? Like a way in the forest, which doesn't > have trees growing on it, but still is in the forest. It is not > excluded. "School" and "lake" are not landuses though, are they? I'm not even sure "forest" is a proper "landuse" tag. I guess if it's meant to mean "tree farm" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm). But most "forest" areas aren't "tree farms", they're "natural=wood". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > no, this is not the case. Multipolygon says: the inner part is NOT > part of the outer polygon. I didn't say that ;-) I said : "an area representing something inside another area would still be part of a multipolygon relation" (I assumed people discussing this with me are familiar with the (advanced) multipolygon proposal and have assumed I was talking about an "inner" role in this case.) > let the mappers decide. So we do agree. My point was to stop or not to stop harrassing mappers that do not include inner polygons. and/or not updating the wiki acordingly, giving the choice, mentionning that solution. We could let decide, but give clues about what's for what. -- 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] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > For the lake in the forest: do you agree that someone would say: the > lake (pond) is in the forest? Like a way in the forest, which doesn't > have trees growing on it, but still is in the forest. It is not > excluded. That's a human language matter. I don't think it's good to stick a data model to verbs and words. Between them, there should be interpretation, understanding, and questions answering. That is to say, programs. The data model should be able to answer maximum human questions (with programs) Case of the lake in the forest, you could imagine multi-question to answer : - what surface is this forest ? Suppose I'm a wood lumber producer, I've got statitics about mean trees per square km. I'll surely want to exclude the lake's surface, as well as any road's surface going thru. - is the lake "in" a forest ? I suppose here I want to know if I can reach the lake by transporting my boat through grass fields. ... -- 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] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: > On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> let the mappers decide. > > So we do agree. My point was to stop or not to stop harrassing mappers that do > not include inner polygons. We can not harass them, but still assert that doing so is wrong, can't we? Step one is to figure out what we want the data to look like. Figuring out how to get the data to look that way is step two. The problem with the landuse tag is it's being used for multiple things. On one hand, it's being used to describe what the land is being used for - if people are using the land as their residence, the land is tagged landuse=residential. On the other hand, it's being used to describe what sorts of things are present on the land - if there are lots of trees, it's being tagged landuse=forest. What happens when there's a section of forest which people are using as their residence? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:56 PM, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: Are you suggesting that when a landuse is inside another landuse, we just don't use a multipolygon relation and don't care if the big is overlapping the small ? But we are not modelling the reality in this case. If someone or some software requests only a certain type of landuse, it will get a full polygone without any hole which is not correct. By doing this, you force all softwares to ask for all data and make complex calculations just to find what has to be excluded. I'm usually not a supporter of 'tagging for the software' but here, we have to represent the real world as they are. For the example of residential and cemetery, the residential area is 'arround' the cemetery and not 'the cemetery is on top of the residential area'. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/10/15 Dave F. : > >> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >>> well, even in the case lake inside a forest I'm not sure, if the >>> forest stops where there is the lake. Probably you can consider the >>> lake also part of the forest (when it's small), or to give a different >>> example: elementary school inside a residential area. Usually those >>> would be considered to be part of the residential area. >>> >>> >> I disagree. A school site with it's buildings, playgrounds, sports >> fields etc can add up to a big area. >> Someone may want to do some calculations based on these areas. They >> should be as accurate as possible. >> I'm in the process of editing the existing residential areas in my town >> to go around these. It certainly makes a difference. >> Then how can you include schools? >> > > well, elementary schools belong to a residential area It's /within /a residential area, but does not /belong /to it. > as well as a > (not to big) convenience store that serves mostly this area or a pub. > Same as above. If I have time/patience I draw the residential area around them. > At least to "general residential areas" according to German law > (BauNVO, WA = allgemeines Wohngebiet = general residential area). On > the other hand, they would just exceptionally be allowed in "pure > residential areas" (reines Wohngebiet, WR). > > For the lake in the forest: do you agree that someone would say: the > lake (pond) is in the forest? Like a way in the forest, which doesn't > have trees growing on it, but still is in the forest. It is not > excluded. > As Sly says, it is not a forest. If you draw a lake you wouldn't label it landuse=forest would you? Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] schools
Hi, On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:30 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. > I think there has to be some reference to which local authority sets the level. On this side of the pond, Nursery and Early are equivalent, for example. In Canada education is a provincial responsibility, and in Ontario there are local "boards" which are responsible for running schools. IIRC, in the US Education is the state's responsibility, and I'm sure they have a different meaning for "junior" then the one in the UK. Maybe something like level=uk,junior to make it more precise? (I'm not sure if there are regional/local differences which need more precision) I'll also comment that while "c_of_e_aided" might mean something, mappers outside of the UK shouldn't need a decoder ring to figure out this stuff. (I try to avoid notations like DOT/MOT - DepartmentOfTransport or MinistryOfTransport is clear and understood by non-locals). Gerald ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Anthony wrote: > We can not harass them, but still assert that doing so is wrong, can't we? We can, but "should we ?" -- 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] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
Anthony wrote: > > What happens when there's a section of forest which people are using > as their residence? No matter what the size, I see these as mutually exclusive. In other words they can't both occur in the same place. Whether they get mapped like that is up to the mapper depending time/fussiness. If there was an easyway to put holes in areas it would encourage mappers to do it. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: > On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Anthony wrote: >> We can not harass them, but still assert that doing so is wrong, can't we? > We can, but "should we ?" If it's wrong, then yes, we should. Deciding that landuse areas should never overlap is the first step toward fixing it. It doesn't mean we have to harass people who unknowingly (or just lazily) map the overlaps, but it does mean we can fix their mistakes when we find them. This could probably be easily semi-automated around the notion you expressed that the inside area is probably the correct (or at least more detailed) one. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> >> What happens when there's a section of forest which people are using >> as their residence? > No matter what the size, I see these as mutually exclusive. In other > words they can't both occur in the same place. I fully agree with you - as I said, I think landuse=forest should be reserved for things like tree farms, where the *use* of the land is growing trees. > Whether they get mapped like that is up to the mapper depending > time/fussiness. > If there was an easyway to put holes in areas it would encourage > mappers to do it. add a fixme=create_hole tag and a bot could go around fixing them... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
Anthony wrote: > The problem with the landuse tag is it's being used for multiple > things. On one hand, it's being used to describe what the land is > being used for - if people are using the land as their residence, the > land is tagged landuse=residential. On the other hand, it's being > used to describe what sorts of things are present on the land - if > there are lots of trees, it's being tagged landuse=forest. +1 as I've said this myself on the orchard proposal talk page. There it was a discussion about whether a orchard isn't actually a farm as well. The only way I see we can solve all this is to get a new tag which is exclusively used for ground cover. Such a tag would then stop having all ambiguity, and stop all discussions like "is a lake in a wood part of the wood or not?". But it's not the easiest option of course and has practical problems: * so what will we do with the current tags? * and how could renderers still be able to make sense of all of it to render something nice? * it probably needs professional input to get a good list of all different kinds of ground cover * it's moving into the realm of micromapping: you may need good quality aerial imagery, and probably a good knowledge of all ground covers as well * so not exactly as easy for a mapper as just putting "landuse=farm" on a big polygon Greetings Ben ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Pieren wrote: > Are you suggesting that when a landuse is inside another landuse, we > just don't use a multipolygon relation and don't care if the big is > overlapping the small ? Not suggesting, exploring solutions. I'm probably missing elements, but I feel it could be possible, and a much lower burden on mappers. But, yes. Explore the idea of putting an end to inner polygons when something exist in this inner. > But we are not modelling the reality in this case. why not ? "(the matrix) It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." what if the truth should be considered a derivate from the osm database ? A filter ? If well define, the modeling would contain reality. (And ease mappers's pain) > If someone or some > software requests only a certain type of landuse, it will get a full > polygone without any hole which is not correct. exact > By doing this, you > force all softwares to ask for all data and make complex calculations > just to find what has to be excluded. exact, but not "just to find", in the main goal to ease mapping. > I'm usually not a supporter of > 'tagging for the software' Yeah, you surprise me ;-) But my point is also toward another consideration : Mappers will tend to walk that way, and nothing can stop them. You can't force a mapper to add a thousand small lake in a forest to an inner polygon. Let's now ease our pain and accept it. software are allready forced to do some calculation (order in mapnik rendering) PS: pieren arguing for relation while sly is arguing against, the world is upside down ;-) ! -- 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] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
Anthony wrote: > add a fixme=create_hole tag and a bot could go around fixing them... Hi Anthony Does this exist or is it a wish list item? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: > But my point is also toward another consideration : > Mappers will tend to walk that way, and nothing can stop them. You can't force > a mapper to add a thousand small lake in a forest to an inner polygon. Let's > now ease our pain and accept it. I do accept it, but it's wrong, so I want to fix it. If we can come up with a set of rules that makes it unambiguous how to fix the situation, we should fix the data, once and for all, not force everyone using the data to fix it each time they use it. On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> add a fixme=create_hole tag and a bot could go around fixing them... > Hi Anthony > Does this exist or is it a wish list item? It's a rough proposal :). Seems relatively easy. Find the larger polygon, multipolygon relation, or boundary relation which intersects with the area and has the same primary tag (e.g. landuse). If it is a polygon, turn it into a multipolygon relation. Then add the inner way to the relation as an exclave or inner way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Lakes, islands and multipolygons
Hi multipolygon masters, How would you tag some island-rich Finnish lakes, for the one here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=62.1747&lon=28.6278&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF Currently big lakes in Finland have been tagged as coastlines which is a good workaround and looks correct in slippy maps. However, it is not right, because they are not seas but just lakes. Additional drawback is that these fake-seas are hard to use for non-OSM purposes because they won't get imported by osm2pgsql. Cloudmade shapefiles are also very messy, islands can be water and water dry land even if coastline tagging and ring directions are OK. But tagging big lakes in some other way is problematic because the outer rings tend to be rather large and there can be quite a many holes in the lake polygons. Such an OSM multipolygon relation could be a bit painful to edit afterwards. And actually each inner polygon should be an own island/islet polygon as well with own tags, at least a name tag. The biggest lake polygon in the data from National Land Survey of Finland has more than 28 vertices. Osm data is not as accurate and has less nodes, but even OSM lakes can be quite complicated. By the way, why do we call all polygons having holes as multipolygons, even if they have only one outer ring? But of course they can be considered as simple multipolygons. -Jukka Rahkkonen- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lakes, islands and multipolygons
At least from what i understand... I wouldnt use the tag natural=coastline simply because coastline becomes confusing when your getting to the 'coast' where there are lots of islands.. im still working on it, but i do have a shp file for the islands (just not imported yet) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=62.1747&lon=28.6278&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF What i plan on doing is simply tagging the islands as place=island .. and leave all the rest as open space. un there are 'natural=marsh' or sub_sea=reef's around... then leaving it empty would be fine. and just having nodes around saying what the is called. ... but. ... on the other hand... when using mkgmap for garmin.. the coastline doesnt know what is land or what is water. ... i think thats a fault of mkgmap though. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.407422&lon=-123.366209&zoom=18&layers=000BFTTT As kosmos make it look cool. (btw, reef is needed for boating & kyaking maps) Hope that helps, cheers, Sam On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Jukka Rahkonen < jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi> wrote: > Hi multipolygon masters, > > How would you tag some island-rich Finnish lakes, for the one here: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=62.1747&lon=28.6278&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF > > Currently big lakes in Finland have been tagged as coastlines which is a > good workaround and looks correct in slippy maps. However, it is not > right, because they are not seas but just lakes. Additional drawback is > that these fake-seas are hard to use for non-OSM purposes because they > won't get imported by osm2pgsql. Cloudmade shapefiles are also very > messy, islands can be water and water dry land even if coastline tagging > and ring directions are OK. But tagging big lakes in some other way is > problematic because the outer rings tend to be rather large and there can > be quite a many holes in the lake polygons. Such an OSM multipolygon > relation could be a bit painful to edit afterwards. And actually each > inner polygon should be an own island/islet polygon as well with own tags, > at least a name tag. > The biggest lake polygon in the data from National Land Survey of Finland > has more than 28 vertices. Osm data is not as accurate and has less > nodes, but even OSM lakes can be quite complicated. > > By the way, why do we call all polygons having holes as multipolygons, > even if they have only one outer ring? But of course they can be > considered as simple multipolygons. > > -Jukka Rahkkonen- > > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] kosher amenities
Hi everybody, as i'm keeping a strict kosher life, i'm interested in mapping the kosher status of any food related amenity big_smile any restourant, butcher, ice cream shop, candy shop, bakery and so on could be a kosher place and i would be able to search kosher places near me. But there are many different kosher "levels" so maybe someone are more "relaxed" while someone else more "strict". i'm proposing on the wiki a new key, please add your thoughts tongue http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features Edoardo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kosher amenities
2009/10/16 Edoardo 'Yossef' Marascalchi : > Hi everybody, > as i'm keeping a strict kosher life, i'm interested in mapping the > kosher status of any food related amenity big_smile > > any restourant, butcher, ice cream shop, candy shop, bakery and so on > could be a kosher place and i would be able to search kosher places near me. > But there are many different kosher "levels" so maybe someone are more > "relaxed" while someone else more "strict". > > i'm proposing on the wiki a new key, please add your thoughts tongue > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features There is no kosher tag there. I'd just tag the place as: kosher=yes hallal=yes etc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kosher amenities
John Smith ha scritto: > There is no kosher tag there. > > there is now.. i just sent the mail before to add it .. :D > I'd just tag the place as: > > kosher=yes > hallal=yes > i don't know about hallal but there are many different kosher certifications. If you are ultra-orthodox you would'nt go to the "local rabbanut" certified restourants while you will probably search for "badatz" only. kosher=yes is better then nothing but i would to be more granular. Here in israel there are thousand of kosher shops and this distinction is "sensible". Maybe in the rest of the world the situation is less complicated, but as far as i know, in the USA at least the situation is similar. Edoardo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kosher amenities
2009/10/16 Edoardo 'Yossef' Marascalchi : > John Smith ha scritto: >> There is no kosher tag there. >> >> > there is now.. i just sent the mail before to add it .. :D > >> I'd just tag the place as: >> >> kosher=yes >> hallal=yes >> > i don't know about hallal but there are many different kosher > certifications. If you are ultra-orthodox you would'nt go to the "local > rabbanut" certified restourants while you will probably search for > "badatz" only. > kosher=yes is better then nothing but i would to be more granular. > Here in israel there are thousand of kosher shops and this distinction > is "sensible". Maybe in the rest of the world the situation is less > complicated, but as far as i know, in the USA at least the situation is > similar. So... kosher=yes kosher=rabbanut kosher=badatz etc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
