[Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-) What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and "coverage". Seems like there is already landcover=tree in the database: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/landcover other values might be * sand * asphalt * grass * scrubs * rock * ice * lichen cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-) > > What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve > many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and > "coverage". I like it. Presumably it's to be precise - you draw only the area that's covered by said landcover, as opposed to landuse which can include small amounts of others within its boundaries. The following landuse values should then be landcover: *basin (probably) *forest (most uses, but some such as national forests should remain landuse) *grass *meadow *orchard *reservoir and possibly others. I would go further and have landuse=agricultural with the current landuse values like farm and greenhouse_horticulture changed to landcover. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-) > > > > What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve > > many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and > > "coverage". > > I like it. Presumably it's to be precise - you draw only the area > that's covered by said landcover, as opposed to landuse which can > include small amounts of others within its boundaries. The following > landuse values should then be landcover: > *basin (probably) > *forest (most uses, but some such as national forests should remain > landuse) > *grass > *meadow > *orchard > *reservoir > and possibly others. I would go further and have landuse=agricultural > with the current landuse values like farm and greenhouse_horticulture > changed to landcover. > > In general, I like the idea. But I don't think the agricultural tags should be changed from landuse--they describe how the land is used. For example, forest describes what covers the land (trees), while orchard describes what those trees are used for (growing fruit). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > In general, I like the idea. But I don't think the agricultural tags should > be changed from landuse--they describe how the land is used. For example, > forest describes what covers the land (trees), while orchard describes what > those trees are used for (growing fruit). Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brad Neuhauser > wrote: >> In general, I like the idea. But I don't think the agricultural tags should >> be changed from landuse--they describe how the land is used. For example, >> forest describes what covers the land (trees), while orchard describes what >> those trees are used for (growing fruit). > > Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the > standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area. > To expand on this, I think landuse should be a more general thing, usually applicable to the entirety of a plot of land or a larger area. A single piece of farmland may have several different types of things growing there. Similarly, a residential community may have small neighborhood parks and playgrounds, and a heavy industrial park may have factories and warehouses. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
Could this not be collapsed into with "surface=*"? If not, what would be the relationship/difference between "surface" and "landcover"? On 07/10/2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-) What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and "coverage". Seems like there is already landcover=tree in the database: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/landcover other values might be * sand * asphalt * grass * scrubs * rock * ice * lichen cheers, Martin ___ 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] new Key proposal: landcover
I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently used seems to be mainly in the context of roads. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > Could this not be collapsed into with "surface=*"? If not, what would be > the relationship/difference between "surface" and "landcover"? > > > On 07/10/2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> I know we already talked about this, but actually no actions followed ;-) >> >> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve >> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and >> "coverage". >> Seems like there is already landcover=tree in the database: >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/landcover >> >> other values might be >> >> * sand >> * asphalt >> * grass >> * scrubs >> * rock >> * ice >> * lichen >> >> >> >> cheers, >> Martin >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the > standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area. > > some tag it like this but this is entirely wrong. National forest defines the ownership but has nothing to do with the landcover. national forests can contain everything from residential homes, vacation homes, forests, deserts, mountains, glaciers, lakes > ___ > 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] new Key proposal: landcover
Brad Neuhauser wrote: > I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently > used seems to be mainly in the context of roads. There's nothing to limit it to roads - it "describes the surface of a feature". For example, the natural=beach wiki page recommends it for beaches, too. I also don't see why the fact that an area is covered with sand should be tagged differently depending on whether that area is used for traffic. Therefore, I'd prefer to always use surface=* for this. There are some landcover types that don't fit into the surface key, though - such as trees. So maybe a new key would be useful anyway, but just for those things that aren't covered by surface? Generally, I'd very much appreciate a key that only describes what's there, with nothing else (such as what's supposed to be there, or why it is there) getting in the way. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 07/10/2010 19:56, Tobias Knerr wrote: Brad Neuhauser wrote: I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently used seems to be mainly in the context of roads. There's nothing to limit it to roads - it "describes the surface of a feature". For example, the natural=beach wiki page recommends it for beaches, too. Indeed - it's also used to describe sports pitches. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] SchemaTroll 2.01 - OSM OpenMapFeatures Spreadsheet - Available for edits
Hi Sam, Seems like some great work. I'm relatively new to contributing to OSM so pardon what may be some ignorant questions that I have. 1. How does the spreadsheet fit in with the current process of managing Map Features (RFC Draft, Proposal, Vote, etc)? 2. How will new users to OSM find this google spreadsheet? 3. Did you use any scripts/code to parse the source datasets? If so, do you plan to open source them? github etc. 4. You cover a lot of information about this in email and the wiki, do you plan to consolidate it all in the wiki? 5. Are there are current/planned users of the SchemaTroll standard? Thanks. Sean On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 08:58, Sam Vekemans wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm happy to report that i have now (finally) converted the OSM Map > Features page into a Google Docs spreadsheet > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features > > The Spreadsheet is now live and available for edits. > > > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Am70fsptsPF2dGZBb3FfWHlhWTVBTGZ5ZV81LVFSMkE&hl=en > > The idea behind it is to organize all of the map features, in a format > that can be used more easily, and make it similar to all of the of Map > Feature PDF catelogues that i am looking at from data sets around the > world. > > > So now you can easily sort the chart, and find where the errors are, > and spot where their are inconsistancies. > > The purpose is so the end user would not need to go to any other page > to find map features as it should all be listed on the same wiki page. > For each key, i have set a space for the key=*description row, so then > the actual key can be clearly defined, with the values below. > And where it's needed, there is space to include a rendering (doesnt > have to be mapnik, just any render that supports it, so the user can > know how that tag could look like. Even a view on the garmin device > would be good to see. > > Also, the purpose of the SchemaTroll 2.01 project, is so that it will > be able to work across multiple databases and datasets > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SchemaTroll_2.01#SchemaTroll_2.01 > > For CommonMap, i have an IRC chat #CommonMap on oftc.net where we can > discuss tagging also. As this map is using CC-BY where the data can > and is welcome to be used by OpenStreetMap, as well as anyone else who > wants it. > So the aim is to be taking other map features examples into account, > and helping to make the OSM Wiki a standard which is 'Common' to many > maps, > > ... and as was mentioned earlier, there is no point in deviating from > the map feature system, when it is already very very good > > I hope to have the other charts available within the next month, and > make it detailed, so it's easy to begin the cross-referencing process. > But 1st, the Map Features page needs to become more clear, with all of > the definitions and descriptions filled in, as well as pictures and > rendering samples (which in many cases) are already on the linking > page, it just hasn't been transfered. > > So (for example) Johen's database system is welcome to use the from > this chart to get pictures and rendering samples, and descriptions > http://blog.jochentopf.com/2010-10-05-introducing-taginfo.html > > I dont plan on doing major edits, and will just be editing the chart > live on the GoogleDocs spreadsheet. > > Cheers, > Sam > --- > Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network > Victoria, BC Canada > > Twitter: @Acrosscanada > Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans > Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' > IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) > IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap The Common Map channel (an open chat > room) > > ___ > 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] [OSM Fork] Re: SchemaTroll 2.01 - OSM OpenMapFeatures Spreadsheet - Available for edits
cool thanks :) I guess it makes the most sence for me to update the wiki page, i'll try my best to answer you questions to make it easier for others who see the page, and might have the same questions. I'll aim to get it done by 1 weeks tim cheers, sam On 10/7/10, Sean Horgan wrote: > Hi Sam, > > Seems like some great work. I'm relatively new to contributing to OSM so > pardon what may be some ignorant questions that I have. > > 1. How does the spreadsheet fit in with the current process of managing Map > Features (RFC Draft, Proposal, Vote, etc)? > > 2. How will new users to OSM find this google spreadsheet? > > 3. Did you use any scripts/code to parse the source datasets? If so, do you > plan to open source them? github etc. > > 4. You cover a lot of information about this in email and the wiki, do you > plan to consolidate it all in the wiki? > > 5. Are there are current/planned users of the SchemaTroll standard? > > Thanks. > > Sean > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 08:58, Sam Vekemans > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I'm happy to report that i have now (finally) converted the OSM Map >> Features page into a Google Docs spreadsheet >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features >> >> The Spreadsheet is now live and available for edits. >> >> >> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Am70fsptsPF2dGZBb3FfWHlhWTVBTGZ5ZV81LVFSMkE&hl=en >> >> The idea behind it is to organize all of the map features, in a format >> that can be used more easily, and make it similar to all of the of Map >> Feature PDF catelogues that i am looking at from data sets around the >> world. >> >> >> So now you can easily sort the chart, and find where the errors are, >> and spot where their are inconsistancies. >> >> The purpose is so the end user would not need to go to any other page >> to find map features as it should all be listed on the same wiki page. >> For each key, i have set a space for the key=*description row, so then >> the actual key can be clearly defined, with the values below. >> And where it's needed, there is space to include a rendering (doesnt >> have to be mapnik, just any render that supports it, so the user can >> know how that tag could look like. Even a view on the garmin device >> would be good to see. >> >> Also, the purpose of the SchemaTroll 2.01 project, is so that it will >> be able to work across multiple databases and datasets >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SchemaTroll_2.01#SchemaTroll_2.01 >> >> For CommonMap, i have an IRC chat #CommonMap on oftc.net where we can >> discuss tagging also. As this map is using CC-BY where the data can >> and is welcome to be used by OpenStreetMap, as well as anyone else who >> wants it. >> So the aim is to be taking other map features examples into account, >> and helping to make the OSM Wiki a standard which is 'Common' to many >> maps, >> >> ... and as was mentioned earlier, there is no point in deviating from >> the map feature system, when it is already very very good >> >> I hope to have the other charts available within the next month, and >> make it detailed, so it's easy to begin the cross-referencing process. >> But 1st, the Map Features page needs to become more clear, with all of >> the definitions and descriptions filled in, as well as pictures and >> rendering samples (which in many cases) are already on the linking >> page, it just hasn't been transfered. >> >> So (for example) Johen's database system is welcome to use the from >> this chart to get pictures and rendering samples, and descriptions >> http://blog.jochentopf.com/2010-10-05-introducing-taginfo.html >> >> I dont plan on doing major edits, and will just be editing the chart >> live on the GoogleDocs spreadsheet. >> >> Cheers, >> Sam >> --- >> Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network >> Victoria, BC Canada >> >> Twitter: @Acrosscanada >> Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans >> Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' >> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) >> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap The Common Map channel (an open chat >> room) >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote: >> >> Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the >> standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area. > > some tag it like this but this is entirely wrong. > National forest defines the ownership but has nothing to do with the > landcover. That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards, driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse=forest area isn't all trees. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Brad Neuhauser wrote: > > I'd forgotten about that--good point. Although surface as currently > > used seems to be mainly in the context of roads. > > There's nothing to limit it to roads - it "describes the surface of a > feature". For example, the natural=beach wiki page recommends it for > beaches, too. > > I also don't see why the fact that an area is covered with sand should > be tagged differently depending on whether that area is used for > traffic. Therefore, I'd prefer to always use surface=* for this. > > There are some landcover types that don't fit into the surface key, > though - such as trees. So maybe a new key would be useful anyway, but > just for those things that aren't covered by surface? > > Generally, I'd very much appreciate a key that only describes what's > there, with nothing else (such as what's supposed to be there, or why it > is there) getting in the way. > > Tobias Knerr Right, using surface=* makes sense to me. It might need some clarification on the wiki, though. For example, on Map Features it says "Apply to all types of highways." [1] and on key=surface [2] and other related pages, the focus is on highways. From taginfo, the highway focus definitely seems to reflect the majority of usage. [3] So, my point is just that this non-highway usage probably needs some clarification on the wiki. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Properties [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface [3] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/surface ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 10/07/2010 10:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A > landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards, That's why it is not landuse=house. A landuse=residential contains all things that belong to a typical residential area, like buildings, gardens etc. The buildings themselves are often tagged seperately. > driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse=forest area > isn't all trees. But this is the way it is used. I've never seen a "landuse=forest" that's not mainly trees. If a national forest as a legal entity contains areas without trees I would not tag these areas as landuse=forest but as grassland, farmland and so on. Even big imports like Corine Land Cover France use it this way: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Corine_Land_Cover/Tagging_scheme I know that legally a field may belong to a national forest, but it shouldn't be tagged as a forest because it isn't one. Every topographic or street map I know would show a border of a national forest as a sort of border line, but the areas where trees grow as forest. So the national park should be tagged as boundary=national_park or similiar. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: > I know that legally a field may belong to a national forest, but it > shouldn't be tagged as a forest because it isn't one. It is a part of a managed forest. > Every topographic > or street map I know would show a border of a national forest as a sort > of border line, but the areas where trees grow as forest. So the > national park should be tagged as boundary=national_park or similiar. It's not a national park, but a national forest. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > > That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A > landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards, > driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse=forest area > isn't all trees. > > still it isn't at all a forest. landuse forest is a documented tag for forests and forests means an area with trees. all the other areas you will find in a national forest have well defined tags natural/landuse=wood,glacier,heat,meadow,shrub just because google,yahoo,garmin draws national forests in green we shouldn't make the same stupid mistake in osm > ___ > 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] new Key proposal: landcover
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A >> landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards, >> driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse=forest area >> isn't all trees. > > still it isn't at all a forest. It is a forest - a clearing within a forest. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 8 October 2010 03:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve > many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and > "coverage". As long as it is made clear that not all landuse= tags are actually landuse (or would we move them?) And not every tag that is landcover would be landcover= eg. manmade=building is a landcover tag, but I don't think we'll get agreement to change it to landcover = building. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 08.10.2010 00:05, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > still it isn't at all a forest. landuse forest is a documented tag for > forests and forests means an area with trees. > all the other areas you will find in a national forest have well defined > tags natural/landuse=wood,glacier,heat,meadow,shrub > just because google,yahoo,garmin draws national forests in green we > shouldn't make the same stupid mistake in osm I totally agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 08.10.2010 07:17, Stephen Hope wrote: > On 8 October 2010 03:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve >> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and >> "coverage". > > > As long as it is made clear that not all landuse= tags are actually > landuse (or would we move them?) I would not change existing tags which have been used for years on thousands of objects. If we need additional tags that's fine. But I think we can solve most of the problem without new tags by using a combination of "landuse" and "surface". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 07.10.2010 23:22, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> of border line, but the areas where trees grow as forest. So the >> national park should be tagged as boundary=national_park or similiar. > It's not a national park, but a national forest. I'm fine with boundary=national_forest as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
