Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[Dave F.]

 On 10/09/2010 04:54, NopMap wrote:


Hi!

Because you only can assume that something probably is a landmark.

But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.


But you're making assumptions that it's not a landmark.


IMO, 50 metres does not make a "cluster".

And why have you added the fixme= tag when you've already added a 
denotation=?



Cheers
Dave F.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "NopMap" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees





Hi!


M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:


so 2 trees are a "cluster"? IMHO that's also agains your own
intentions, because 2 trees can be as significant as one. Even three
or four. Traditionally, oaks appear in small groups of 3 to 5
("Eichengruppe"). They are mostly landmarks or at least good points
for orientation.

Why don't you simply tag the landmark trees as landmarks and keep the
trees being trees? WIll we have all trees that have at least another
tree within 50 metres as "cluster" in our database in the future, i.e.
thousands or even millions of them?



Because you only can assume that something probably is a landmark.

But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.


Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so 
important about the fact that the tree is standing alone that it needs to 
specifically be tagged as standing (or not standing) alone?


Many OSM features stand alone, but there has not in the past been a need to 
make any special notice of this, or tag their proximity to the same features 
nearby.


David



And it is a heuristic. Of course it is possible that there may be special
cases where it is not correct. But if you look at the massive heaps of 
trees

they are whole citys mass imported from some data source without further
tagging, probably none of them are landmarks. So I am content if it is 
only

99% correct.

If you want to oppose this approach, please show me a few 100 examples 
where

it went awry. A debate only makes sense if the debate does not take more
time than fixing the exceptions. And it does not make sense at all if the
problems are only theoretical.

bye
  Nop

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5517044.html

Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.







___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom  wrote:

> Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
> important about the fact that the tree is standing alone that it needs to
> specifically be tagged as standing (or not standing) alone?

David,

Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.

The issue is this (and I'll try to be as neutral as possible):

* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).

* He then concludes that trees in OSM which are not prominent should
be tagged to indicate that.

* Me, Martin and others say that the wiki definition is wrong, that
people aren't using it, that it's ignored in imports, etc. and
landmark trees are the "special" ones and should be retagged.

* Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the
"right thing" (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone
else that's wrong.

* Nop then points out stats from Germany which he says support his point.


I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to
be a tagging issue as much as it is about "doing the right thing". I
think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are
being punished by needing to retag their data.

The position of the rest of us is that:

1) We don't tag normal things as "normal", we tag special things as special.

2) The wiki is, more or less, supposed to reflect actual usage. (I'll
elaborate more on this point later on in the mail)

3) The definition makes common sense if it's "any tree", rather than
this complex definition of a special tree, having to do with space or
landmark, or any of that.

Now, I want to also bring to the table an extract I did this week of
all the trees in the world:

http://www.emacsen.net/trees.osm.gz

People, feel free to download and examine the trees.

To elaborate on #2:

This is a big difference between languages. In French, for example,
there's a society which determines what can be considered official
French. In English, it's quite different, especially in the US.
Dictionaries document words in their current usage. They're
"descriptive rather than prescriptive", but of course all
schoolteachers teach children to look words up in the dictionary and
use the words "properly".

That is the constant tension that exists when you define terms, and is
similarly the tension that exists in our wiki regarding definitions of
features. Are we describing tags in OSM as they're used, or explaining
how to use the tags? A bit of both, I'd say.

In this case, it's clear to me there's a disconnect between the actual
usage and the wiki definition, so it's the wiki which should change.

- Serge

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Unnamed footways for pedestrian navigation

[SomeoneElse]

 On 10/09/2010 11:14, Tobias Knerr wrote:

Lulu-Ann wrote:

I would like to add loc_name-tags for this and name ways like "footway from village 
A to B, west of footway crossing in MyWoodName"

Yes: Don't use loc_name (or any other key that contains "name") for
this. It's not a name. It's a description.

Yes - I'd agree that that sounds to me like a description rather than a 
name (unless the path actually has a name of some sort of course).


However, in areas where there are many paths that could be ued to go 
from one place to another, I can see that it would be useful to know a 
suggested one to take (based on someone who's been there before, rather 
than a routing engine which only knows about distance and maybe elevation).


There have probably been 1001 wiki proposals for how to record stuff 
like this, so I've got two questions:


o Which proposals* are in use, widespread or otherwise?

o What information would it be useful to know about e.g. a footpath in 
the woods from A to B?


(followups possibly better suited to the tagging list; cc:ed)

Cheers,
Andy

*none of which I've read because it's been summer in this hemisphere and 
far too nice to stay indoors.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[David Groom]

Serge

Thank you for such a very helpful and clear summary.  I had tried to follow 
from the start of the thread, but I couldn't see through it with the clarity 
you have managed.


See some of my points below.

- Original Message - 
From: "Serge Wroclawski" 

To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees




On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom  
wrote:



Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
important about the fact that the tree is standing alone that it needs to
specifically be tagged as standing (or not standing) alone?


David,

Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.

The issue is this (and I'll try to be as neutral as possible):

* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).



So its all down to individual interpretation of "lone" and significant".

As the wiki has no definition that "lone" means a tree further away than X 
metres from another tree, or "significant" because of X, Y, or Z,  then 
surely it is down to individual mappers to mark a node and tag it a 
natural=tree based on how "lone" or "significant" it appears to them. 
Therefore in the absence of any specific guidance on the wiki, if someone 
has marked a node as natural=tree, and a tree does indeed exist at the 
location, then the tagging is not wrong (IMHO).




* He then concludes that trees in OSM which are not prominent should
be tagged to indicate that.


Well the wiki does say "lone" OR "significant". By virtue of the "or" in the 
definition, lone trees which are not significant should simply be tagged as 
natural=tree. If extra information is needed to be tagged, such as why it is 
significant, then presuambly this should be added..




* Me, Martin and others say that the wiki definition is wrong, that
people aren't using it, that it's ignored in imports, etc. and
landmark trees are the "special" ones and should be retagged.


I wouldn't say "wrong", see my point above, but perhaps the wiki does need 
expanding a bit.




* Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the
"right thing" (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone
else that's wrong.




* Nop then points out stats from Germany which he says support his point.


I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to
be a tagging issue as much as it is about "doing the right thing". I
think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are
being punished by needing to retag their data.

The position of the rest of us is that:

1) We don't tag normal things as "normal", we tag special things as 
special.


2) The wiki is, more or less, supposed to reflect actual usage. (I'll
elaborate more on this point later on in the mail)

3) The definition makes common sense if it's "any tree", rather than
this complex definition of a special tree, having to do with space or
landmark, or any of that.

Now, I want to also bring to the table an extract I did this week of
all the trees in the world:

http://www.emacsen.net/trees.osm.gz

People, feel free to download and examine the trees.

To elaborate on #2:

This is a big difference between languages. In French, for example,
there's a society which determines what can be considered official
French. In English, it's quite different, especially in the US.
Dictionaries document words in their current usage. They're
"descriptive rather than prescriptive", but of course all
schoolteachers teach children to look words up in the dictionary and
use the words "properly".

That is the constant tension that exists when you define terms, and is
similarly the tension that exists in our wiki regarding definitions of
features. Are we describing tags in OSM as they're used, or explaining
how to use the tags? A bit of both, I'd say.

In this case, it's clear to me there's a disconnect between the actual
usage and the wiki definition, so it's the wiki which should change.

- Serge

___
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] tagging single trees

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

Serge Wroclawski 
wrote:

> Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.

Thank you for this summary.

I agree to your position.

I notice today a bot (called Nop) has starting changing tag on single
tree by adding denotation=cluster

I don't know what it means and what his the bot algorithm

an example :


Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[John F. Eldredge]

He noted earlier in the thread that the bot is tagging any tree that is within 
50 meters of another tree as denotation=cluster.  The wiki says to use this 
notation for trees that are not single trees, but does not specify what 
distance distinguishes a single tree from a cluster of trees.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
>From  :mailto:pdora...@mac.com
Date  :Fri Sep 10 12:34:34 America/Chicago 2010


Serge Wroclawski 
wrote:

> Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.

Thank you for this summary.

I agree to your position.

I notice today a bot (called Nop) has starting changing tag on single
tree by adding denotation=cluster

I don't know what it means and what his the bot algorithm

an example :


Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot

--
Pierre-Alain Dorange


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[Tobias Knerr]

John F. Eldredge wrote:
> He noted earlier in the thread that the bot is tagging any tree that is 
> within 50 meters of another tree as denotation=cluster.
> The wiki says to use this notation for trees that are not single trees, but 
> does not specify what distance distinguishes a single tree from a cluster of 
> trees.

The wiki only says this since Nop added that tag to the
"Tag:natural=tree" page today.[1]

>From the information available to me, it seems as if the tag was
invented and mass tagged (using a script) by the same person, in the
same day, without even an attempt to reach consensus that this mass edit
should be performed.

For the record, I think that the denotation=cluster tag is a bad idea.
It's vague, overlaps with the other values of denotation and doesn't add
any information that wasn't there before.

Tobias Knerr

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=DE%3ATag%3Anatural%3Dtree&action=historysubmit&diff=530483&oldid=529909

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Anatural%3Dtree&action=historysubmit&diff=530482&oldid=528386

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/9/10 Tobias Knerr :

> For the record, I think that the denotation=cluster tag is a bad idea.
> It's vague, overlaps with the other values of denotation and doesn't add
> any information that wasn't there before.


as I already expressed here: I completely agree.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[NopMap]

A few corrections are in order...


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> * Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
> and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
> 

The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
prominent tree.


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> * Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the
> "right thing" (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone
> else that's wrong.
> 

Not quite. I have added only a few trees myself. I say this is destructive
as about 2400 Mappers appear to have been doing "the right thing" while 75%
of the "bad" trees are from only 3 mass imports.


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> * Nop then points out stats from Germany which he says support his point.
> 

...as well as global stats by somebody else which show roughly the same.



Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to
> be a tagging issue as much as it is about "doing the right thing". I
> think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are
> being punished by needing to retag their data.
> 

Somewhat like that. I think nullifying 4 years of work by 2400 people who
are not here to voice their opinion is thoughtless, unfriendly, destructive
- anything but an adequate solution.

I am game for any solution that does not destroy existing data.

bye
  Nop

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519806.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] social facility

[Sean Horgan]

I'd like to get some feedback from the community on possible inclusion of
"emergency shelter" in a "social facility" feature.  I was discussing this
with the author of that proposal, kerosin, as I'd like to fold the Homeless
Shelter proposal into Social Facility.

After just a little research, the Humanitarian OSM tags came up and I want
to make that whatever we propose is in line with those goals.

Thanks,

Sean

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sean Horgan 
Date: Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 14:28
Subject: Re: [OpenStreetMap] Re: Re: Re: Re: social facility
To: kerosin 


While I don't want to over-complicate this proposal, the inclusion of
emergency raises more questions.

The use-case I'm thinking about for emergencies covers shelters for
disasters as well as vaccination clinics or distribution of aid.  Some of
this is covered in the Humanitarian OSM tags:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Tags/Humanitarian_Data_Model#Health_Facility

An emergency shelter would be covered under Internally Displaced People
(IDP) camp site, e.g.

idp:camp_condition=building

A vaccination clinic, for something like smallpox would be:

health_facility:type
=dispensary

I didn't see anything in there there for distribution of food or other aid
like building supplies.

>From your wiki proposal, I would change this:

social_facility=emergency_shelter (a shelter for homeless people e.g. in
case of a disaster)

to just

social_facility=emergency

We could then use the Humanitarian tags to describe the feature in more
detail.  Would this be the right way to approach this?

Sean
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[Richard Welty]

 On 9/10/10 4:27 PM, NopMap wrote:

A few corrections are in order...


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:

* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).


The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
prominent tree.


the problem is that "lone" doesn't really imply that, at least not in
the version of english i'm familiar with.


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:

* Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the
"right thing" (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone
else that's wrong.


Not quite. I have added only a few trees myself. I say this is destructive
as about 2400 Mappers appear to have been doing "the right thing" while 75%
of the "bad" trees are from only 3 mass imports.


why are you so sure that ~2400 mappers have been doing it that way?
did you poll them or something?


 Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:

I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to
be a tagging issue as much as it is about "doing the right thing". I
think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are
being punished by needing to retag their data.


Somewhat like that. I think nullifying 4 years of work by 2400 people who
are not here to voice their opinion is thoughtless, unfriendly, destructive
- anything but an adequate solution.


once again, how do we really know anything about those 2400 mappers
and their work? it's not like they tagged all those trees with why they're
important or anything like that.

this is why i maintain that we have already effectively lost information.

richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[NopMap]

Hi!


John F. Eldredge wrote:
> 
> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
> 

Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:

Tagging ML:

Anthony-6: "Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
retagged?"

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: "can't you do this analysis and add tags to the
landmark trees?"

German ML:

Wolfgang-4:  "Aber aus deinen Daten sollte es doch eigentlich möglich sein,
die
einmal so erkannten und damit "geretteten" Bäume per bot mit einem
entsprechenden Tag zu versehen,"

I did what was asked for. You can't mark landmarks automatically, but can
add a hint to those that are likely unremarkable. Since it is just an
additional tag, it is non-destructive, unlike re-inventing the tagging
scheme. If you don't like it, just ignore it.

This being OSM, surely there would be complaints. It is very funny that they
even come from one of the very people who suggested it in the first place.
:-)

But I can live much better with being the bad guy anyway after investing
quite some work to fix at least some of the ambiguity than with
thoughtlessly destroying 4 years of previous work by other people.

So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
mostly remedied.  If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 5
nodes of information - go ahead and let the edit war commence.

bye
  Nop

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519927.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[Anthony]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap  wrote:
> I did what was asked for. You can't mark landmarks automatically, but can
> add a hint to those that are likely unremarkable. Since it is just an
> additional tag, it is non-destructive, unlike re-inventing the tagging
> scheme. If you don't like it, just ignore it.
>
> This being OSM, surely there would be complaints. It is very funny that they
> even come from one of the very people who suggested it in the first place.
> :-)

Umm, first of all, you did the opposite of what was suggested.

Secondly, my suggestion was mainly sarcastic.

Thirdly, I'm not complaining.  I find this whole thing rather humorous.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[Anthony]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap  wrote:
>> But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
>> with a tag.
>
> I suggest you start marking buildings which are within 50 meters of
> each other with denotation=cluster next.
>
> The more facts, the better.

For the sarcasm impaired:  this above suggestion is an example of it.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[John F. Eldredge]

Actually, I did not write the statement quoted below.  I posted a reply to 
Pierre-Alain Dorange, who had made the quoted statement.  I explained to 
Pierre-Alain that the bot was reportedly tagging any tree within 50 meters of 
any other tree as a cluster.  Incidentally, doing so is the opposite of what 
had been suggested.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
From  :mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de
Date  :Fri Sep 10 16:00:02 America/Chicago 2010



Hi!


John F. Eldredge wrote:
> 
> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
> 

Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:

Tagging ML:

Anthony-6: "Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
retagged?"

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: "can't you do this analysis and add tags to the
landmark trees?"

German ML:

Wolfgang-4:  "Aber aus deinen Daten sollte es doch eigentlich möglich sein,
die
einmal so erkannten und damit "geretteten" Bäume per bot mit einem
entsprechenden Tag zu versehen,"

I did what was asked for. You can't mark landmarks automatically, but can
add a hint to those that are likely unremarkable. Since it is just an
additional tag, it is non-destructive, unlike re-inventing the tagging
scheme. If you don't like it, just ignore it.

This being OSM, surely there would be complaints. It is very funny that they
even come from one of the very people who suggested it in the first place.
:-)

But I can live much better with being the bad guy anyway after investing
quite some work to fix at least some of the ambiguity than with
thoughtlessly destroying 4 years of previous work by other people.

So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
mostly remedied.  If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 5
nodes of information - go ahead and let the edit war commence.

bye
  Nop

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519927.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap  wrote:

> So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
> made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
> mostly remedied.  If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 5
> nodes of information - go ahead and let the edit war commence.

I'm a bit frustrated.

We're having what I think of as a civil discussion, and several of us
have asked that we bring forth the evidence and let the community
vote, and each time, you've not gone forth.

Then, while you talk about the Wiki as an authoritative source, you've
changed the wiki, and you've also been running what appears to be a
bot against the data.

And now you're declaring that you're "out of the conversation".

When you combine these things, the way it leaves me is with the
feeling that you aren't really interested in what the rest of us have
to say, that you'll do what you want and ignore the community's input.

This is how edit wars are started, and I'd really feel better if you:

1) Removed your changes to the wiki that weren't voted on in the
normal tagging process.

2) Revert the changes you've made that reflect the tags that you added
until such time as the changes are voted on.

- Serge

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging