Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Dave Swarthout]

I'll weigh in with the common American conception of "dirt road". It is a
general term meaning unpaved. As Jaakko correctly pints out, some "dirt
roads" are really quite well built. For an example close to my Alaska home,
the long lonely road leading to the Prudhoe Bay oilfields, see these images
of the Dalton Highway:
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=2133&bih=1185&q=dalton+highway+alaska&oq=dalton+highway

In my neighborhood of Homer, Alaska, indeed in most of rural Alaska,
residential roads are generally unpaved. Due to the severe winter
conditions, paving roads in Alaska is very expensive and once paved they
require frequent, expensive maintenance. I tag them as surface=gravel to
agree with OSM definitions but in everyday conversations they're called
dirt roads.

To construct such a road involves removing all the topsoil above the frost
line, piling truckloads of gravel base over the subsoil, putting down a
layer of geo-textile fabric to keep the road base stable during spring
"breakup", and then putting more truckloads of a specially formulated
mixture of clay, gravel and sand on top and grading it smooth. Once the
highway is open for use, this grading process is repeated several times
during each "summer season" as rain and traffic regularly pound potholes
into it. The best time to drive on these roads is in winter after the first
snow has hardened into a smooth layer  — no potholes, no dust, smooth
running.

As for "earth" or "ground" — I've never encountered those terms as
descriptions of road surfaces. Many dirt roads in the United States are not
as good as those in Alaska because of the expense involved and because
winters are so much less severe. They are really just dirt — an unpaved
track whose composition is a mix of clay and sand and gravel, whatever is
there to begin with plus some topping to make it less slippery in rain.

Regards,

AlaskaDave


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com <
jaa...@helleranta.com> wrote:

> My (non-native) English understanding / ear says that dirt is a general
> name for all unpaved roads. This may include any loose material, really
> ranging from soil that just happened to be there to natural or processed
> sand to industrially produced gravel, possibly with an added layer of
> "loose" material spread on top of the gravel to make it less loose (eg rock
> ash). So, as far as I classify / understand, dirt roads _may_ be quite well
> built.
>
> Now, earth and ground both give me a strong connotation of a road (or a
> borderline track) that is practically not built. Or at least the surface
> material is not processed sand or gravel and certainly it doesn't have a
> "finishing layer" such as rock ash.
> This said I would also consider earth=ground surfaced roads as being
> clearly more prone to bad condition after rains (or melted snow, etc).
>
> So, I would say that earth and ground are synonyms but dirt is the broader
> concept. In fact I would see dirt pretty much synonymous to unpaved - but
> would hesitate to nuke one of those over another as I would not be
> surprised if a bunch of people would see this differently.
>
> How do others here understand these terms?
>
> Cheers,
> -Jaakko
> .. Whose family's summer cottage in Finland has a pretty well
> self-constructed 1.5km strip of dirt road leading to it with sand base,
> gravel top, rock ash finishing layer.
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device. * +505-8845-3391 * http://about.me/jaakkoh
>  Hello,
>
> There are 3 values for surface (ground, dirt and earth) that are
> described as "probably equivalent" in the wiki. The pictures tell a
> slightly different story: ground seems to allow the presence of
> "grass" along with "usage marks" (car or pedestrian tracks), as does
> earth, whereas dirt seems to include no grass and include the
> possibility of "mud" after rainfall.
>
> TagInfo shows that "earth" is significantly less used than the other
> two. Could we officially recommend against that value then? Having so
> many equal things makes translation (and teaching) much harder than
> necessary, and I don't see when an application would differentiate
> between these values.
>
> I tried searching for their definitions in English dictionaries, but
> they point to each other as synonyms. "Earth" is sometimes cited as a
> "poetic description" of soil. "Ground" could describe anything from
> "soil" to harder surfaces. I believe the most accurate description
> would actually be something along the lines of "bare soil" (confirmed
> by comparing results in Google Images).
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>
> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging m

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[jonathan]

Here's my take from an Englishman!

While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public 
(adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form.  Most 
dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.


Now, back to the original question.  I totally agree with Fernando, 
these classifications are confusing. In English English they pretty well 
mean the same thing. We should look to rationalise them.


However, remember the surface tag is used elsewhere other than 
roads/tracks where there may be some distinction, although I can't 
imagine what the distinction may be.


In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this 
context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt 
to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface.  
Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 13/03/2014 08:57, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I'll weigh in with the common American conception of "dirt road". It 
is a general term meaning unpaved. As Jaakko correctly pints out, some 
"dirt roads" are really quite well built. For an example close to my 
Alaska home, the long lonely road leading to the Prudhoe Bay 
oilfields, see these images of the Dalton Highway:

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=2133&bih=1185&q=dalton+highway+alaska&oq=dalton+highway

In my neighborhood of Homer, Alaska, indeed in most of rural Alaska, 
residential roads are generally unpaved. Due to the severe winter 
conditions, paving roads in Alaska is very expensive and once paved 
they require frequent, expensive maintenance. I tag them as 
surface=gravel to agree with OSM definitions but in everyday 
conversations they're called dirt roads.


To construct such a road involves removing all the topsoil above the 
frost line, piling truckloads of gravel base over the subsoil, putting 
down a layer of geo-textile fabric to keep the road base stable during 
spring "breakup", and then putting more truckloads of a specially 
formulated mixture of clay, gravel and sand on top and grading it 
smooth. Once the highway is open for use, this grading process is 
repeated several times during each "summer season" as rain and traffic 
regularly pound potholes into it. The best time to drive on these 
roads is in winter after the first snow has hardened into a smooth 
layer  --- no potholes, no dust, smooth running.


As for "earth" or "ground" --- I've never encountered those terms as 
descriptions of road surfaces. Many dirt roads in the United States 
are not as good as those in Alaska because of the expense involved and 
because winters are so much less severe. They are really just dirt --- 
an unpaved track whose composition is a mix of clay and sand and 
gravel, whatever is there to begin with plus some topping to make it 
less slippery in rain.


Regards,

AlaskaDave


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com 
mailto:jaa...@helleranta.com>> wrote:


My (non-native) English understanding / ear says that dirt is a
general name for all unpaved roads. This may include any loose
material, really ranging from soil that just happened to be there
to natural or processed sand to industrially produced gravel,
possibly with an added layer of "loose" material spread on top of
the gravel to make it less loose (eg rock ash). So, as far as I
classify / understand, dirt roads _may_ be quite well built.

Now, earth and ground both give me a strong connotation of a road
(or a borderline track) that is practically not built. Or at least
the surface material is not processed sand or gravel and certainly
it doesn't have a "finishing layer" such as rock ash.
This said I would also consider earth=ground surfaced roads as
being clearly more prone to bad condition after rains (or melted
snow, etc).

So, I would say that earth and ground are synonyms but dirt is the
broader concept. In fact I would see dirt pretty much synonymous
to unpaved - but would hesitate to nuke one of those over another
as I would not be surprised if a bunch of people would see this
differently.

How do others here understand these terms?

Cheers,
-Jaakko
.. Whose family's summer cottage in Finland has a pretty well
self-constructed 1.5km strip of dirt road leading to it with sand
base, gravel top, rock ash finishing layer.

--
Sent from my Android device. * +505-8845-3391
 * http://about.me/jaakkoh

Hello,

There are 3 values for surface (ground, dirt and earth) that are
described as "probably equivalent" in the wiki. The pictures tell a
slightly different story: ground seems to allow the presence of
"grass" along with "usage marks" (car or pedestrian tracks), as does
earth, whereas dirt seems to include no grass and include the
possibility of "mud" after rainfall.

TagInfo shows that "earth" 

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[fly]

On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
> Here's my take from an Englishman!
> 
> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
> (adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form.  Most
> dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.
> 
> Now, back to the original question.  I totally agree with Fernando,
> these classifications are confusing. In English English they pretty well
> mean the same thing. We should look to rationalise them.

How do you tag hiking paths which do not lead across grass or solid rock ?

I use ground in these cases and if the surfaces changes every few metres
between natural underground (from tree needles to rocks)

> However, remember the surface tag is used elsewhere other than
> roads/tracks where there may be some distinction, although I can't
> imagine what the distinction may be.

Exactly, how about unpaved sports` pitch and tracks (clay or dirt ?).

> In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this
> context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt
> to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface. 
> Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use.

That is one major problem of vague descriptions and of overlapping meanings.

I would always use unpaved.

I consider dirt as a mixture of earth, mud and little rocks or thin
gravel where I am not able to distinguish between earth or mud and where
it is not ground as it differs from the surrounding underground.

My 2 ct from a non-native speaker.
fly


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - amenity=Boat_sharing

[nounours77]

Dear all,

the proposal is now open for voting.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing

The idea is to create a tag for boat sharing communities, just in analogy of 
the existing and well accepted tag "amenity=car_sharing".

Thank you very much for voting.

nounours77
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature proposal: tourism=apartment: approved

[nounours77]

Dear all,

the proposal reached the end of the voting period. There were 10 Yes and 0 No.
I consider therefore the proposal to be accepted.

Thank you all for your comments and the support for the proposal


Nounours77




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

[Tagging] Relation:associatedStreet: house or address? factorizing?

[André Pirard]

Hi,

How great to finally more than an empty page
 !!!
But now, if that relation factorizes (2) "street name" shouldn't it
factorize addr: city, country, postcode too?
Shouldn't those keys be allowed in the relation?
Shouldn't those who know the deep secrets of that relation write that
down in this page instead of various messages I see?

But I have a little problem here
.
addr:housenumber is on a node.
If the relation contains

  * Way Le Théâtre à Denis (176885423)
 as house
  * Node 1873693518  as house

JOSM diagnoses
"Member for role house of wrong type" - Role verification problem
   2 objects: Rue Sainte-Marguerite, Le Théâtre à Denis

Now if I remove the second member (1), JOSM diagnoses *2 problems*:
House number without street
"Member for role house of wrong type" - Role verification problem
   2 objects: Rue Sainte-Marguerite, Le Théâtre à Denis

(1) the role is "house" but the descriptive comment very vaguely,
tersely and strangely describes it as "one or more house numbers" which
is logical.
Should I assume that "house" is a misnomer, that it means "address" and
that I need only the node?

(2) After having received the message below, quoting the worst written
article of all the wiki, always invoked without justifications,  saying
that "I have not understood" that relations are not made to factorize
tags of all members, I am surprised to see associatedStreet factorize
the "street" tag of all of its "house" members.
Who did not understand?
A relation, whatever its type but probably not associatedStreet, could
as well factorize a speed limit or any zone.

Cheers,

André.


On 2012-11-22 01:34, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote :
> Hi,
>
> Le mercredi 21 novembre 2012 22:53:53, A.Pirard.Papou a écrit :
>> Look at multilinestring, which I see as a swiss-knife way assembly.
>>
>> In my mind, such a relation is the way to assign the same tags to a
>> collection of objects making a whole with regard to those tags.  If we
>> add recursion (nesting), which is very easy to do, that's powerful.
> You misunderstood the idea/goal behind the multilinestring proposal. It 
> wasn't 
> created to factorize tags of all members. It was used to record one real life 
> feature made of 2 or more OSM way objects. (like a long river, a boundary 
> between two countries all made of hundreds of ways) 
>
> A key sentence has been added to avoid using it badly : 
>
> "Do not use it to group loose ways : Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories  
> (like all path in a forest) Example : if the name is not the same for all 
> those ways, then you'd better not use this relation"
>
> What you are looking for is a category thing to group "loose ways" sharing a 
> common property but relation weren't made for that :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories

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

Re: [Tagging] Relation:associatedStreet: house or address? factorizing?

[Jo]

What do you mean by 'factorize'?

Jo


2014-03-13 15:00 GMT+01:00 André Pirard :

>  Hi,
>
> How great to finally more than an empty 
> page!!!
> But now, if that relation factorizes (2) "street name" shouldn't it
> factorize addr: city, country, postcode too?
> Shouldn't those keys be allowed in the relation?
> Shouldn't those who know the deep secrets of that relation write that down
> in this page instead of various messages I see?
>
> But I have a little problem here
> .
> addr:housenumber is on a node.
> If the relation contains
>
>- Way Le Théâtre à Denis 
> (176885423)as house
>- Node 1873693518  as
>house
>
> JOSM diagnoses
> "Member for role house of wrong type" - Role verification problem
>2 objects: Rue Sainte-Marguerite, Le Théâtre à Denis
>
> Now if I remove the second member (1), JOSM diagnoses *2 problems*:
> House number without street
> "Member for role house of wrong type" - Role verification problem
>2 objects: Rue Sainte-Marguerite, Le Théâtre à Denis
>
> (1) the role is "house" but the descriptive comment very vaguely, tersely
> and strangely describes it as "one or more house numbers" which is logical.
> Should I assume that "house" is a misnomer, that it means "address" and
> that I need only the node?
>
> (2) After having received the message below, quoting the worst written
> article of all the wiki, always invoked without justifications,  saying
> that "I have not understood" that relations are not made to factorize tags
> of all members, I am surprised to see associatedStreet factorize the
> "street" tag of all of its "house" members.
> Who did not understand?
> A relation, whatever its type but probably not associatedStreet, could as
> well factorize a speed limit or any zone.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   André.
> On 2012-11-22 01:34, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote :
>
> Hi,
>
> Le mercredi 21 novembre 2012 22:53:53, A.Pirard.Papou a écrit :
>
>  Look at multilinestring, which I see as a swiss-knife way assembly.
>
> In my mind, such a relation is the way to assign the same tags to a
> collection of objects making a whole with regard to those tags.  If we
> add recursion (nesting), which is very easy to do, that's powerful.
>
>  You misunderstood the idea/goal behind the multilinestring proposal. It 
> wasn't
> created to factorize tags of all members. It was used to record one real life
> feature made of 2 or more OSM way objects. (like a long river, a boundary
> between two countries all made of hundreds of ways)
>
> A key sentence has been added to avoid using it badly :
>
> "Do not use it to group loose ways : Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
> (like all path in a forest) Example : if the name is not the same for all
> those ways, then you'd better not use this relation"
>
> What you are looking for is a category thing to group "loose ways" sharing a
> common property but relation weren't made for that 
> :http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Fernando Trebien]

But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, fly  wrote:
> On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
>> Here's my take from an Englishman!
>>
>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
>> (adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form.  Most
>> dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.
>>
>> Now, back to the original question.  I totally agree with Fernando,
>> these classifications are confusing. In English English they pretty well
>> mean the same thing. We should look to rationalise them.
>
> How do you tag hiking paths which do not lead across grass or solid rock ?
>
> I use ground in these cases and if the surfaces changes every few metres
> between natural underground (from tree needles to rocks)
>
>> However, remember the surface tag is used elsewhere other than
>> roads/tracks where there may be some distinction, although I can't
>> imagine what the distinction may be.
>
> Exactly, how about unpaved sports` pitch and tracks (clay or dirt ?).
>
>> In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this
>> context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt
>> to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface.
>> Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use.
>
> That is one major problem of vague descriptions and of overlapping meanings.
>
> I would always use unpaved.
>
> I consider dirt as a mixture of earth, mud and little rocks or thin
> gravel where I am not able to distinguish between earth or mud and where
> it is not ground as it differs from the surrounding underground.
>
> My 2 ct from a non-native speaker.
> fly
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[fly]

On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?

Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
does not have to be.

All together, I think we could get rid of at least one out of the three
tags after updating the descriptions but this will not that easy with
existing tags in common use.

fly

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, fly  wrote:
>> On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
>>> Here's my take from an Englishman!
>>>
>>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
>>> (adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form.  Most
>>> dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.
>>>
>>> Now, back to the original question.  I totally agree with Fernando,
>>> these classifications are confusing. In English English they pretty well
>>> mean the same thing. We should look to rationalise them.
>>
>> How do you tag hiking paths which do not lead across grass or solid rock ?
>>
>> I use ground in these cases and if the surfaces changes every few metres
>> between natural underground (from tree needles to rocks)
>>
>>> However, remember the surface tag is used elsewhere other than
>>> roads/tracks where there may be some distinction, although I can't
>>> imagine what the distinction may be.
>>
>> Exactly, how about unpaved sports` pitch and tracks (clay or dirt ?).
>>
>>> In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this
>>> context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt
>>> to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface.
>>> Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use.
>>
>> That is one major problem of vague descriptions and of overlapping meanings.
>>
>> I would always use unpaved.
>>
>> I consider dirt as a mixture of earth, mud and little rocks or thin
>> gravel where I am not able to distinguish between earth or mud and where
>> it is not ground as it differs from the surrounding underground.
>>
>> My 2 ct from a non-native speaker.
>> fly
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[ael]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
> Here's my take from an Englishman!
> 
> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all

>From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not
clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to
avoid rolling in it.

However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
usage and dialects from a few centuries ago

I tend to tag with "ground" where there are sections of soil (which
may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
and no one tag seems really descriptive.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Relation:associatedStreet: house or address? factorizing?

[André Pirard]

On 2014-03-13 15:17, Jo wrote :
> What do you mean by 'factorize'?
The same as Sylvain Letuffe and Albert Einstein ;-)
ab+ac=a×(b+c)
a is a multiple common factor that is expressed only once.
It is the street name that can be alongside each number or only once in
the relation.
Понимаешь? ;-)

Cheers,

André.


> Jo
>
>
> 2014-03-13 15:00 GMT+01:00 André Pirard  >:
>
> Hi,
>
> How great to finally more than an empty page
>  !!!
> But now, if that relation factorizes (2) "street name" shouldn't
> it factorize addr: city, country, postcode too?
> Shouldn't those keys be allowed in the relation?
> Shouldn't those who know the deep secrets of that relation write
> that down in this page instead of various messages I see?
>
> But I have a little problem here
> .
> addr:housenumber is on a node.
> If the relation contains
>
>   * Way Le Théâtre à Denis (176885423)
>  as house
>   * Node 1873693518 
> as house
>
> JOSM diagnoses
> "Member for role house of wrong type" - Role verification problem
>2 objects: Rue Sainte-Marguerite, Le Théâtre à Denis
>
> Now if I remove the second member (1), JOSM diagnoses *2 problems*:
> House number without street
> "Member for role house of wrong type" - Role verification problem
>2 objects: Rue Sainte-Marguerite, Le Théâtre à Denis
>
> (1) the role is "house" but the descriptive comment very vaguely,
> tersely and strangely describes it as "one or more house numbers"
> which is logical.
> Should I assume that "house" is a misnomer, that it means
> "address" and that I need only the node?
>
> (2) After having received the message below, quoting the worst
> written article of all the wiki, always invoked without
> justifications,  saying that "I have not understood" that
> relations are not made to factorize tags of all members, I am
> surprised to see associatedStreet factorize the "street" tag of
> all of its "house" members.
> Who did not understand?
> A relation, whatever its type but probably not associatedStreet,
> could as well factorize a speed limit or any zone.
>
> Cheers,
>
> André.
>
>
> On 2012-11-22 01:34, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le mercredi 21 novembre 2012 22:53:53, A.Pirard.Papou a écrit :
>>> Look at multilinestring, which I see as a swiss-knife way assembly.
>>>
>>> In my mind, such a relation is the way to assign the same tags to a
>>> collection of objects making a whole with regard to those tags.  If we
>>> add recursion (nesting), which is very easy to do, that's powerful.
>> You misunderstood the idea/goal behind the multilinestring proposal. It 
>> wasn't 
>> created to factorize tags of all members. It was used to record one real 
>> life 
>> feature made of 2 or more OSM way objects. (like a long river, a 
>> boundary 
>> between two countries all made of hundreds of ways) 
>>
>> A key sentence has been added to avoid using it badly : 
>>
>> "Do not use it to group loose ways : 
>> Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories  
>> (like all path in a forest) Example : if the name is not the same for 
>> all 
>> those ways, then you'd better not use this relation"
>>
>> What you are looking for is a category thing to group "loose ways" 
>> sharing a 
>> common property but relation weren't made for that :
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Steve Doerr]

On 13/03/2014 15:09, ael wrote:

 From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not
clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to
avoid rolling in it.

However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
usage and dialects from a few centuries ago

I tend to tag with "ground" where there are sections of soil (which
may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
and no one tag seems really descriptive.




For me (British English), 'ground' isn't a type of surface at all: it's 
usually preceded by the definite article ('the ground') and means 'the 
surface of the earth' (where 'earth' means the planet), but not 
necessarily in a natural state: a paved area can be 'the ground'. Inside 
a building, though, you talk of 'the floor'.


'Earth' as a substance is much the same as 'soil', except that soil 
makes one think specifically of earth as a growing medium for plants.


There may be a 'false friend' in some languages, as 'the ground' roughly 
corresponds to 'le sol' in French, which nevertheless sometimes has the 
narrower meaning of 'soil'.


--
Steve

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Georg Feddern]

Am 13.03.2014 15:56, schrieb fly:

On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:

But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?

Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
does not have to be.

All together, I think we could get rid of at least one out of the three
tags after updating the descriptions but this will not that easy with
existing tags in common use.


aehm, well - and which one would you get rid of?

Some times ago I remember a likewise identical discussion at the german 
forum.

AFAIK:

ground
Used for ways where the underground consists of different and often 
changing parts like rock, earth, vegetation (generic value) - as you say 
above.


earth
Used for ways where the underground consists of - well, earth (natural 
sand) constantly.


dirt
See above - the term seems to be outside of OSM used for a "man made" / 
constructed work - which inside OSM seems to be the (defined) value 
"compacted".


So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a useful 
value (smooth walking on hiking trails) .


Georg

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

Re: [Tagging] Relation:associatedStreet: house or address? factorizing?

[Pieren]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, André Pirard


> (1) the role is "house" but the descriptive comment very vaguely, tersely
> and strangely describes it as "one or more house numbers" which is logical.
> Should I assume that "house" is a misnomer, that it means "address" and
> that I need only the node?
>

Maybe the wiki can be improved but if you don't like the relation
"associatedStreet" (like many) then don't use it !
The role "house" is to point out the OSM element carying the house number,
so any node or way tagged with "addr:housenumber=*". Perhaps the name
"house" is not the best idea ever in OSM but, well, we can survive with
this.


>
> (2) After having received the message below, quoting the worst written
> article of all the wiki,
>

If you mean the wiki page about "relations are not categories", you should
read it again because it has nothing to do with your questions about
address and/or "factorization"


> always invoked without justifications,  saying that "I have not
> understood" that relations are not made to factorize tags of all members, I
> am surprised to see associatedStreet factorize the "street" tag of all of
> its "house" members.
> Who did not understand?
> A relation, whatever its type but probably not associatedStreet, could as
> well factorize a speed limit or any zone.
>
>
You have to understand that what you call "factorize", means moving common
attributs from small, individual OSM elements to a higher entity, either a
multiline string relation or any sort of relation (multipolygon,
associatedStreet, etc), is not something automatic or generally admitted in
OSM. The data consumers (basically, the software applications) need some
special processing for that and they will do it only if it is formalized
somewhere, commonly agreed and, at least, partially used in the database.

For instance, it is commonly accepted that adding "addr:country" in all
addresses is not required when all addresses are surrounded by a "country
polygon" (same for the place names or post codes now). The advantage is
clear and obvious here when we can save millions duplications.

The associatedStreet question is bit different since the relation itself is
not so widely used (even rejected by many contributors), is not supported
by many data consumers and with a definition that changed in time. For
instance, it was never clear if the relation should contain only one street
way or all of them. It was also never said that the street name should be
moved from the highway elements to the relation (what you call
"factorize"). All of these things are possible but it needs some sort of
discussions, consensus, approvals and software changes.

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Richard Welty]

On 3/13/14 12:02 PM, Georg Feddern wrote:
>
> So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a
> useful value (smooth walking on hiking trails) .
where as for my mapping in the US, dirt is the only
one that i use, and common usage is to refer to these
roads as dirt roads by pretty much everyone.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Russell Deffner]

My two cents:

"dirt" maybe applies only to road surface
"ground" human impacted 'earth'
"earth" as natural as remains depending on location

=Russ

-Original Message-
From: Georg Feddern [mailto:o...@bavarianmallet.de] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:03 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

Am 13.03.2014 15:56, schrieb fly:
> On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?
> Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
> does not have to be.
>
> All together, I think we could get rid of at least one out of the three
> tags after updating the descriptions but this will not that easy with
> existing tags in common use.

aehm, well - and which one would you get rid of?

Some times ago I remember a likewise identical discussion at the german 
forum.
AFAIK:

ground
Used for ways where the underground consists of different and often 
changing parts like rock, earth, vegetation (generic value) - as you say 
above.

earth
Used for ways where the underground consists of - well, earth (natural 
sand) constantly.

dirt
See above - the term seems to be outside of OSM used for a "man made" / 
constructed work - which inside OSM seems to be the (defined) value 
"compacted".

So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a useful 
value (smooth walking on hiking trails) .

Georg

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


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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Fernando Trebien]

In Portuguese, we have the same false friend as French, and I'd guess
Spanish and Italian have it too. At least for Portuguese, literal
translations of these terms (ground, dirt, earth and soil) correspond
exactly to your description, Steve. If we translate literally,
however, we're gonna see people tagging as "dirt" any place with trash
accumulation, and most people would pick "earth" for the pictures in
the wiki. Currently, "earth" is the least used value (only 7k
instances), whereas "ground" and "dirt" are used 500k and 350k times
respectively.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Steve Doerr  wrote:
> On 13/03/2014 15:09, ael wrote:
>>
>>  From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
>> is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not
>> clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
>> is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
>> that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to
>> avoid rolling in it.
>>
>> However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
>> post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
>> English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
>> usage and dialects from a few centuries ago
>>
>> I tend to tag with "ground" where there are sections of soil (which
>> may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
>> rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
>> paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
>> and no one tag seems really descriptive.
>>
>>
>
> For me (British English), 'ground' isn't a type of surface at all: it's
> usually preceded by the definite article ('the ground') and means 'the
> surface of the earth' (where 'earth' means the planet), but not necessarily
> in a natural state: a paved area can be 'the ground'. Inside a building,
> though, you talk of 'the floor'.
>
> 'Earth' as a substance is much the same as 'soil', except that soil makes
> one think specifically of earth as a growing medium for plants.
>
> There may be a 'false friend' in some languages, as 'the ground' roughly
> corresponds to 'le sol' in French, which nevertheless sometimes has the
> narrower meaning of 'soil'.
>
> --
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Tod Fitch]

While I'd probably colloquially call it a "dirt road", your description of the 
construction sounds suspiciously like the construction developed by John 
MacAdam and may well be considered to be surfaced road by a highway engineer. 
In the early days of motoring that type of road was considered to be paved or 
"improved". A bit later it might have been described as "water bound macadam" 
to distinguish it from pavings where petroleum products were used to help 
stabilize the surface (bituminous or tar bound macadam (tarmac)). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam

I suspect that getting OSM mappers to tag it as surface=macadam would be futile 
(only 17 instances in tag info). So your surface=gravel (716,032 instances) is 
probably the best that can be hoped for.

-Tod



On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:

> I'll weigh in with the common American conception of "dirt road". It is a 
> general term meaning unpaved. As Jaakko correctly pints out, some "dirt 
> roads" are really quite well built. For an example close to my Alaska home, 
> the long lonely road leading to the Prudhoe Bay oilfields, see these images 
> of the Dalton Highway:
> https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=2133&bih=1185&q=dalton+highway+alaska&oq=dalton+highway
> 
> In my neighborhood of Homer, Alaska, indeed in most of rural Alaska, 
> residential roads are generally unpaved. Due to the severe winter conditions, 
> paving roads in Alaska is very expensive and once paved they require 
> frequent, expensive maintenance. I tag them as surface=gravel to agree with 
> OSM definitions but in everyday conversations they're called dirt roads. 
> 
> To construct such a road involves removing all the topsoil above the frost 
> line, piling truckloads of gravel base over the subsoil, putting down a layer 
> of geo-textile fabric to keep the road base stable during spring "breakup", 
> and then putting more truckloads of a specially formulated mixture of clay, 
> gravel and sand on top and grading it smooth. Once the highway is open for 
> use, this grading process is repeated several times during each "summer 
> season" as rain and traffic regularly pound potholes into it. The best time 
> to drive on these roads is in winter after the first snow has hardened into a 
> smooth layer  — no potholes, no dust, smooth running.
> 
> As for "earth" or "ground" — I've never encountered those terms as 
> descriptions of road surfaces. Many dirt roads in the United States are not 
> as good as those in Alaska because of the expense involved and because 
> winters are so much less severe. They are really just dirt — an unpaved track 
> whose composition is a mix of clay and sand and gravel, whatever is there to 
> begin with plus some topping to make it less slippery in rain.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> AlaskaDave
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com 
>  wrote:
> My (non-native) English understanding / ear says that dirt is a general name 
> for all unpaved roads. This may include any loose material, really ranging 
> from soil that just happened to be there to natural or processed sand to 
> industrially produced gravel, possibly with an added layer of "loose" 
> material spread on top of the gravel to make it less loose (eg rock ash). So, 
> as far as I classify / understand, dirt roads _may_ be quite well built.
> 
> Now, earth and ground both give me a strong connotation of a road (or a 
> borderline track) that is practically not built. Or at least the surface 
> material is not processed sand or gravel and certainly it doesn't have a 
> "finishing layer" such as rock ash. 
> This said I would also consider earth=ground surfaced roads as being clearly 
> more prone to bad condition after rains (or melted snow, etc).
> 
> So, I would say that earth and ground are synonyms but dirt is the broader 
> concept. In fact I would see dirt pretty much synonymous to unpaved - but 
> would hesitate to nuke one of those over another as I would not be surprised 
> if a bunch of people would see this differently.
> 
> How do others here understand these terms?
> 
> Cheers, 
> -Jaakko 
> .. Whose family's summer cottage in Finland has a pretty well 
> self-constructed 1.5km strip of dirt road leading to it with sand base, 
> gravel top, rock ash finishing layer.
> 
> --
> Sent from my Android device. * +505-8845-3391 * http://about.me/jaakkoh
> 
> Hello,
> 
> There are 3 values for surface (ground, dirt and earth) that are
> described as "probably equivalent" in the wiki. The pictures tell a
> slightly different story: ground seems to allow the presence of
> "grass" along with "usage marks" (car or pedestrian tracks), as does
> earth, whereas dirt seems to include no grass and include the
> possibility of "mud" after rainfall.
> 
> TagInfo shows that "earth" is significantly less used than the other
> two. Could we officially recommend against that value then? Having so
> many equal things makes trans

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Fernando Trebien]

It seems that:
- if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
right?
- the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)

We may add notes to the wiki asking users to choose more specific descriptions.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Fernando Trebien
 wrote:
> In Portuguese, we have the same false friend as French, and I'd guess
> Spanish and Italian have it too. At least for Portuguese, literal
> translations of these terms (ground, dirt, earth and soil) correspond
> exactly to your description, Steve. If we translate literally,
> however, we're gonna see people tagging as "dirt" any place with trash
> accumulation, and most people would pick "earth" for the pictures in
> the wiki. Currently, "earth" is the least used value (only 7k
> instances), whereas "ground" and "dirt" are used 500k and 350k times
> respectively.
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Steve Doerr  wrote:
>> On 13/03/2014 15:09, ael wrote:
>>>
>>>  From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
>>> is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be "not
>>> clean". That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
>>> is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
>>> that might be described as "dirty" or even "dirt" if telling a child to
>>> avoid rolling in it.
>>>
>>> However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
>>> post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
>>> English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
>>> usage and dialects from a few centuries ago
>>>
>>> I tend to tag with "ground" where there are sections of soil (which
>>> may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
>>> rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
>>> paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
>>> and no one tag seems really descriptive.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For me (British English), 'ground' isn't a type of surface at all: it's
>> usually preceded by the definite article ('the ground') and means 'the
>> surface of the earth' (where 'earth' means the planet), but not necessarily
>> in a natural state: a paved area can be 'the ground'. Inside a building,
>> though, you talk of 'the floor'.
>>
>> 'Earth' as a substance is much the same as 'soil', except that soil makes
>> one think specifically of earth as a growing medium for plants.
>>
>> There may be a 'false friend' in some languages, as 'the ground' roughly
>> corresponds to 'le sol' in French, which nevertheless sometimes has the
>> narrower meaning of 'soil'.
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>
> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours open until

[Robin `ypid` Schneider]

Hi

After some discussion about this feature on the mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-February/016559.html
the proposal is now open for voting.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours_open_until

-- 
Live long and prosper
Robin Schneider

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select

[Robin `ypid` Schneider]

Hi again

And direct the next one. Sadly there was no discussion for this proposal yet.
Started voting phase:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/opening_hours_holiday_select

-- 
Live long and prosper
Robin Schneider

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - amenity=Boat_sharing

[André Pirard]

On 2014-03-13 14:20, nounours77 wrote :
> Dear all,
>
> the proposal is now open for voting.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing
>
> The idea is to create a tag for boat sharing communities, just in analogy of 
> the existing and well accepted tag "amenity=car_sharing".
BTW, slightly off topic, I still have no clean solution for
fr:covoiturage, which is translated to en:car_sharing by Nominatim.
car_sharing is criticized in the case sort of subscribed hitch hikers
stop subscribed drivers for a lift.
And I was thinking that you're lucky that hikers probably very seldom
hitch stop boats ;-)

Seriously, I'd be happy if a something;type=* emerged that could apply
to car_sharing too.
Please note my impression that it should be boat_something:type to allow
for boat:type and captain:type.

Best regards to the Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän,

André.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - opening hours holiday select

[Pieren]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Robin `ypid` Schneider  wrote:

It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or
"opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag
template is using the first version)

I guess you plan to update the main "opening_hours" wiki if the
proposal is accepted ?

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Murry McEntire]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems that:
> - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
> paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
> surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
> right?
> - the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
> broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
> compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
>
>
Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
"I walk the ground", "breaking ground" (as in construction or farming),
"above ground", or "below ground"; it would seem to fit the Oxford
definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
"marshy ground". (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of "the floor
of a room".)

Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
surface which may include ruts through vegetation.

Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
conflicting.
"Ground" is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
surface.

As to American usage of "dirt", the example is poor -- if you stick with
the noun, not the related adjective, saying "your pants have dirt on them"
would likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel.
To me, a "dirt road" is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.).
It may be compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel
as a "gravel road".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Fernando Trebien]

So:
- "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same thing)
- "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
vegetation (say, grass)
- "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
wiki)

So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
unpaved.

Could "dirt" involve "mud"?

Could "ground" involve "rock"? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
>  wrote:
>>
>> It seems that:
>> - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
>> paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
>> surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
>> right?
>> - the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
>> broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
>> compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
>>
>
> Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
> "I walk the ground", "breaking ground" (as in construction or farming),
> "above ground", or "below ground"; it would seem to fit the Oxford
> definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
> gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
> "marshy ground". (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
> natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of "the floor of
> a room".)
>
> Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
> is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
> not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
> surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
>
> Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
> conflicting.
> "Ground" is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
> meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
> common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
> surface.
>
> As to American usage of "dirt", the example is poor -- if you stick with the
> noun, not the related adjective, saying "your pants have dirt on them" would
> likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, a
> "dirt road" is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may be
> compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
> "gravel road".
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 13/mar/2014 um 15:56 schrieb fly :
> 
> Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
> does not have to be.


+1, both are probably an indication that the way is travelled frequently 
enough/compacted to some level that prevents vegetation (ok, this surely 
depends on the climate)

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 13/mar/2014 um 20:57 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
> 
> So:
> - "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same 
> thing)
> - "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
> vegetation (say, grass)


IMHO if it's grass then the mapper will most likely have used grass and not 
ground, even if the broader meaning of the word includes all kind of surface to 
stand on


> - "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
> may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
> wiki)


+1, dirt should not include gravel


> 
> So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
> ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
> unpaved.


earth (in the meaning of soil) is not very specific, it is actually a mixture 
of organic and inorganic substances in different grain sizes, while clay sand 
and gravel are basically the same material (minerals=not organic) in quite 
specific and well defined grain sizes


> 
> Could "dirt" involve "mud"?


mud is also not very specific, basically it is soil or inorganic finer grained 
substances with water


> 
> Could "ground" involve "rock"?


IMHO yes, but if the surface is only rock you'd better use rock as value 

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[David Bannon]

In Australia, we refer to a "dirt road" meaning just about any unsealed
road. Very rarely use "earth" or "ground". Ground sounds to me more like
the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !

We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
through its normal maintenance cycle, the gravel can become almost
invisible, lost in the dust or mud if it rains.

At the risk of complicating the matter, I'd rather distinguish between
"made" and "unmade" dirt roads. A road that has been graded and made
dome shaped (as the Roman's taught us) is "made" - usually an easy
drive. Some drivers get nervous on unmade roads as they develop pot
holes much quicker and the surface can deliver "surprises".

So I suggest 'dirt', 'earth' and 'ground' are really not very
informative terms.

David


On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 16:57 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> So:
> - "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same 
> thing)
> - "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
> vegetation (say, grass)
> - "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
> may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
> wiki)
> 
> So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
> ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
> unpaved.
> 
> Could "dirt" involve "mud"?
> 
> Could "ground" involve "rock"? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
> this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems that:
> >> - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
> >> paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
> >> surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
> >> right?
> >> - the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
> >> broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
> >> compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
> >>
> >
> > Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
> > "I walk the ground", "breaking ground" (as in construction or farming),
> > "above ground", or "below ground"; it would seem to fit the Oxford
> > definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
> > gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
> > "marshy ground". (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
> > natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of "the floor of
> > a room".)
> >
> > Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
> > is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
> > not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
> > surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
> >
> > Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
> > conflicting.
> > "Ground" is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
> > meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
> > common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
> > surface.
> >
> > As to American usage of "dirt", the example is poor -- if you stick with the
> > noun, not the related adjective, saying "your pants have dirt on them" would
> > likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, a
> > "dirt road" is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may be
> > compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
> > "gravel road".
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> 
> 



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

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Fernando Trebien]

Well, I've updated the descriptions in the wiki for ground, dirt and
earth: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurface&diff=1000653&oldid=978363

Does it look ok?

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Bannon  wrote:
>
> In Australia, we refer to a "dirt road" meaning just about any unsealed
> road. Very rarely use "earth" or "ground". Ground sounds to me more like
> the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !
>
> We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
> through its normal maintenance cycle, the gravel can become almost
> invisible, lost in the dust or mud if it rains.
>
> At the risk of complicating the matter, I'd rather distinguish between
> "made" and "unmade" dirt roads. A road that has been graded and made
> dome shaped (as the Roman's taught us) is "made" - usually an easy
> drive. Some drivers get nervous on unmade roads as they develop pot
> holes much quicker and the surface can deliver "surprises".
>
> So I suggest 'dirt', 'earth' and 'ground' are really not very
> informative terms.
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 16:57 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> So:
>> - "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same 
>> thing)
>> - "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
>> vegetation (say, grass)
>> - "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
>> may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
>> wiki)
>>
>> So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
>> ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
>> unpaved.
>>
>> Could "dirt" involve "mud"?
>>
>> Could "ground" involve "rock"? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
>> this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It seems that:
>> >> - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
>> >> paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
>> >> surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
>> >> right?
>> >> - the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
>> >> broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
>> >> compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
>> > "I walk the ground", "breaking ground" (as in construction or farming),
>> > "above ground", or "below ground"; it would seem to fit the Oxford
>> > definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
>> > gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
>> > "marshy ground". (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
>> > natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of "the floor 
>> > of
>> > a room".)
>> >
>> > Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
>> > is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
>> > not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
>> > surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
>> >
>> > Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
>> > conflicting.
>> > "Ground" is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
>> > meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
>> > common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
>> > surface.
>> >
>> > As to American usage of "dirt", the example is poor -- if you stick with 
>> > the
>> > noun, not the related adjective, saying "your pants have dirt on them" 
>> > would
>> > likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, 
>> > a
>> > "dirt road" is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may 
>> > be
>> > compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
>> > "gravel road".
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)

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

[Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

[johnw]

I'm very interested to hear people's opinion on landuse=civic_admin

It would be a landuse for townhalls and other capital buildings, Federal 
Buildings, DMV, courthouses, and other basic civic administrative offices where 
it is clearly a government building.

This is to have a matching landuse to go with building=civic or 
amenity=townhall, and to differentiate basic townhall complexes from office 
building complexes in OSM.

Some countries do not require a visit to a federal building more than once 
every couple years (DMV, passport renewal), 
while some countries require visiting their local and regional government 
offices more than once a month for various paperwork duties and centralized 
government duties.

I was having a good discussion with martin about this, and he feels we don't 
need a landuse=civic or even a building=civic. I'd like to hear other opinions, 
as well as his reply to this narrowing of civic to civic_admin:

- Is it narrow enough in scope now, or does the idea of ownership still nix it 
for you?
- What would be the most minimal solution for differentiating the landuses for 
these buildings - make a straight landuse=townhall for townhalls only, or is 
the whole idea of differentiation bad to you?


Javbw


> Javbw
>> Martin

>> IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic.
> 
> if I were back in San Deigo, I might agree with that, but having come to 
> Japan, there is a definite and immediately recognizable distinction of city 
> buildings, *and* they are used quite heavily. 
> 
> There is a known difference and a corresponding need for these facilities - 
> at least the major buildings - to be treated above a standard office 
> building. We recognize this with the amenity=townhall tag, and someone 
> created building=civic for a reason, and I feel there should be a landuse to 
> denote the complex's land differently than the standard commercial use 
> building.
> 
>> Both can be considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, 
>> I'd encourage everyone to use more specific building tags.
> 
> generically, yea they are both office buildings.  I'm concerned primarily 
> with the landuse to go with townhall complexes and other admin buildings. 
> 
>> It is also not clear from building=public what exactly this indicates 
>> (publicly owned and used by a public entity but not generally accessible, 
>> publicly owned and open to the general public, privately owned but publicly 
>> operated and publicly accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately 
>> used).
> 
> If we start getting into building=public, then yes, there is a lot of 
> ambiguity, which is why I took your suggestion and narrowed it to 
> landuse=public_admin, i'll drop the others from this point forward.
> 
> For the vast majority of the *administration* buildings, either in California 
> or Japan (and I imagine elsewhere =] ), there is absolutely no ambiguity. 
> Everyone knows the building types I listed :
> 
>>> public_admin would the city halls, courthouses, state, and capital 
>>> buildings, embassies, etc. This is the most important one, IMO. 
> 
> (along with US "federal buildings") are definitely government operated. There 
> is zero ambiguity with those. Maybe public is a bad word.  how about 
> landuse=civic_admin?
> 
>> Generally I would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, 
>> and neither from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)
> 
> You're right - those tags don't really show ownership. And I don't really 
> care about ownership either - mostly purpose. We separate schools because we 
> recognize that is a useful landuse to differentiate - like all the myriad of 
> landuses - public or private, a park is a park, and a school is a school. But 
> for this particular one (cuvic_admin), it is pretty obvious that it is a 
> government operated building. 
> 
> I'm stating that there is a need for a landuse to show purpose for these 
> heavily trafficked (known) civic buildings, just as we denote the others. 
> They are more than an office building, just as a university is more than an 
> office building complex with meeting rooms.
> 
> The above is the main point of what I'm trying to say.
> 
>> If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy implications, 
>> could be hard to verify with publicly accessible sources) a dedicated new 
>> tag should be used, e.g. proprietor, owner, property_of or similar
> 
> If we get into building=public, yea. But landuse=civic_admin seems pretty cut 
> and dry. Which government ( village / town / city / county-prefecture 
> /state-province / region / federal) is is a question proprietor= could 
> answer, but thats outside my discussion.. 
> 
> 
> your suggestions and rebuttals have helped me think through my points and 
> clarify my opinions. Thanks =D
> 
> ありがとう (Arigatou)
> John
> 
> PS: sorry to hijack leisure=events 
> 
> 
>> cheers,
>> Martin


___
Taggi

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Dave Swarthout]

I agree with David Bannon when he says " 'earth' and 'ground' are really
not very informative terms" when it comes to road surfaces but not what he
says about dirt, and with most of what Martin said in his recent post, but
especially that a "dirt road does not contain gravel" even though we
colloquially apply the term dirt road to ones with a gravel surface. A true
dirt road is one that runs atop normal ground and its surface is not
prepared or engineered in any special way.

The dirt roads I described in Alaska are more properly described by your
proposal as "compacted" or "fine gravel" in that they employ a specially
engineered composition of small stones, sand, clay and whatever, compacted
and smoothed to offer a smooth and *relatively* weatherproof surface.

There are a lot of mud roads in Alaska as well. This is a dirt road that
runs through swampy, boggy areas and typically should not be attempted in
an ordinary automobile but rather with 4WD or all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

In the proposal there is this phrase in the description of "gravel" that I
would have you remove: "Broken/crushed rock with sharp edges, known as
ballast on railways" The ballast I typically see on railways could not be
driven on comfortably. The stones are much too big and have, as you
correctly state, sharp edges. I would be in favor of something along the
lines of

"similar to compacted above but less carefully engineered, more loosely
arranged"

Thanks for the good work you're doing with this proposal. I think it will
be a big help in describing surfaces. Now if we could only just deal with
the issue of "smoothness" or "trafficability" in such a straightforward
manner LOL

Dave


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I've updated the descriptions in the wiki for ground, dirt and
> earth:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurface&diff=1000653&oldid=978363
>
> Does it look ok?
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Bannon 
> wrote:
> >
> > In Australia, we refer to a "dirt road" meaning just about any unsealed
> > road. Very rarely use "earth" or "ground". Ground sounds to me more like
> > the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !
> >
> > We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
> > through its normal maintenance cycle, the gravel can become almost
> > invisible, lost in the dust or mud if it rains.
> >
> > At the risk of complicating the matter, I'd rather distinguish between
> > "made" and "unmade" dirt roads. A road that has been graded and made
> > dome shaped (as the Roman's taught us) is "made" - usually an easy
> > drive. Some drivers get nervous on unmade roads as they develop pot
> > holes much quicker and the surface can deliver "surprises".
> >
> > So I suggest 'dirt', 'earth' and 'ground' are really not very
> > informative terms.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 16:57 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> >> So:
> >> - "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the
> same thing)
> >> - "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
> >> vegetation (say, grass)
> >> - "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
> >> may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
> >> wiki)
> >>
> >> So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
> >> ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
> >> unpaved.
> >>
> >> Could "dirt" involve "mud"?
> >>
> >> Could "ground" involve "rock"? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
> >> this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems that:
> >> >> - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
> >> >> paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
> >> >> surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without
> vegetation,
> >> >> right?
> >> >> - the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
> >> >> broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
> >> >> compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When
> speaking of
> >> > "I walk the ground", "breaking ground" (as in construction or
> farming),
> >> > "above ground", or "below ground"; it would seem to fit the Oxford
> >> > definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary
> also
> >> > gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such
> as
> >> > "marshy ground". (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
> >> > natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of "the
> floor of
> >> > a room".)
> >> >
> >> > Upon seeing surface=gro

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[johnw]

+1 for dirt. There is a distinct difference between a dirt and gravel roads, as 
well as sand. 

In the US, dirt roads - especially fire and forestry roads - are maintained for 
private and emergency access. Most of these roads are maintained by grading, 
but are not surfaced with gravel in any way. 
The ground may technically be a mixture of naturally occurring rocks and clay, 
dirt and decomposed granite. but If you asked people to name it, would be 
called dirt. 

"Dirt road" is also a colloquial definition for these types of roads, so maybe 
I'm biased.  "soil road" sounds bizarre, and ground road is just plain bad 
English. But all the other roads (gravel, cobblestone, asphalt, concrete, 
paved, etc) sound normal. 

Dirt turns into mud with rain, so unless you are talking about a road through a 
marsh, one would expect a dirt road to be somewhat muddy when it rains.

because of the lack of rain, there are thousands and thousands of true dirt 
roads in drier climates. 
Wetter climates often gravel the road until it sinks into the mud and they add 
more - a gravel road. 


A true "mud" road would have to be mud most of the year, regardless of weather. 
sounds like a grade 5 track too. 

"roads" in the desert are often in wadis, so they are truly sand roads. 

There are gravel roads. and there are certainly sand roads. but there are also 
a lot of dirt roads as well.   

- Ground is something you walk over, dig unto, or fly over = the surface. Moles 
live underground, not underdirt or undersoil.

- Soil is what you put in pots for planting flowers - prepared mixture of dirt, 
fertilizer, and ingredients for gardening/farming use = AKA "Potting soil" - 
not "potting dirt" or "potting ground"


On Mar 14, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Fernando Trebien  
wrote:

> So:
> - "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same 
> thing)
> - "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
> vegetation (say, grass)
> - "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
> may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
> wiki)
> 
> So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
> ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
> unpaved.
> 
> Could "dirt" involve "mud"?
> 
> Could "ground" involve "rock"? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
> this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It seems that:
>>> - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
>>> paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
>>> surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
>>> right?
>>> - the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
>>> broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
>>> compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
>>> 
>> 
>> Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
>> "I walk the ground", "breaking ground" (as in construction or farming),
>> "above ground", or "below ground"; it would seem to fit the Oxford
>> definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
>> gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
>> "marshy ground". (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
>> natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of "the floor of
>> a room".)
>> 
>> Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
>> is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
>> not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
>> surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
>> 
>> Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
>> conflicting.
>> "Ground" is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
>> meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
>> common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
>> surface.
>> 
>> As to American usage of "dirt", the example is poor -- if you stick with the
>> noun, not the related adjective, saying "your pants have dirt on them" would
>> likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, a
>> "dirt road" is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may be
>> compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
>> "gravel road".
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
> 
> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)
> 
> __

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[Fernando Trebien]

Keeping up with you:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurface&diff=1000695&oldid=1000659

It seems science defines "soil" more broadly, we sure can expect
people to choose based on common (not scientific) usage. From
Wikipedia: "[Soil] is a natural body that exists as part of the
pedosphere. (...) [It] is considered the "skin of the earth" with
interfaces between the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and
biosphere. (...) Soil is commonly referred to as "earth" or "dirt";
technically, the term "dirt" should be restricted to displaced soil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM, johnw  wrote:
> +1 for dirt. There is a distinct difference between a dirt and gravel roads, 
> as well as sand.
>
> In the US, dirt roads - especially fire and forestry roads - are maintained 
> for private and emergency access. Most of these roads are maintained by 
> grading, but are not surfaced with gravel in any way.
> The ground may technically be a mixture of naturally occurring rocks and 
> clay, dirt and decomposed granite. but If you asked people to name it, would 
> be called dirt.
>
> "Dirt road" is also a colloquial definition for these types of roads, so 
> maybe I'm biased.  "soil road" sounds bizarre, and ground road is just plain 
> bad English. But all the other roads (gravel, cobblestone, asphalt, concrete, 
> paved, etc) sound normal.
>
> Dirt turns into mud with rain, so unless you are talking about a road through 
> a marsh, one would expect a dirt road to be somewhat muddy when it rains.
>
> because of the lack of rain, there are thousands and thousands of true dirt 
> roads in drier climates.
> Wetter climates often gravel the road until it sinks into the mud and they 
> add more - a gravel road.
>
>
> A true "mud" road would have to be mud most of the year, regardless of 
> weather. sounds like a grade 5 track too.
>
> "roads" in the desert are often in wadis, so they are truly sand roads.
>
> There are gravel roads. and there are certainly sand roads. but there are 
> also a lot of dirt roads as well.
>
> - Ground is something you walk over, dig unto, or fly over = the surface. 
> Moles live underground, not underdirt or undersoil.
>
> - Soil is what you put in pots for planting flowers - prepared mixture of 
> dirt, fertilizer, and ingredients for gardening/farming use = AKA "Potting 
> soil" - not "potting dirt" or "potting ground"
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Fernando Trebien  
> wrote:
>
>> So:
>> - "earth" is a close synonym of "soil" (though it's not exactly the same 
>> thing)
>> - "ground" could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
>> vegetation (say, grass)
>> - "dirt" could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
>> may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
>> wiki)
>>
>> So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
>> ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
>> unpaved.
>>
>> Could "dirt" involve "mud"?
>>
>> Could "ground" involve "rock"? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
>> this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
>>>  wrote:

 It seems that:
 - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
 paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state "the
 surface consists of ground" is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
 right?
 - the American usage of "dirt" (as in "your car will get dirty") is a
 broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
 compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)

>>>
>>> Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
>>> "I walk the ground", "breaking ground" (as in construction or farming),
>>> "above ground", or "below ground"; it would seem to fit the Oxford
>>> definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
>>> gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
>>> "marshy ground". (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
>>> natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of "the floor of
>>> a room".)
>>>
>>> Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
>>> is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
>>> not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
>>> surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
>>>
>>> Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
>>> conflicting.
>>> "Ground" is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
>>> meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
>>> common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
>>> surface.
>>>
>>> As to Americ

Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

[Satoshi IIDA]

+1 to define "landuse=civic_admin".

It is very helpful to represent the outline when using type=site relation.
Especially for more than 2 amenities shares 1 landuse.

e.g. in the case of 2 schools (junior high & high school) is in 1 landuse,
in Japan.
I think they must be represent as type=site relation,
but currently the outline of the amenity is "amenity=school".
In fact, the number of amenities is 2.
Which is the "name" for outline "school"? Junior high? High school?

I think "landuse=civic_admin" could resolve this situation.
(site relation of node "amenity=school" & outline "landuse=civic_admin")

Cheers.




2014-03-14 8:54 GMT+09:00 johnw :

> I'm very interested to hear people's opinion on landuse=civic_admin
>
> It would be a landuse for townhalls and other capital buildings, Federal
> Buildings, DMV, courthouses, and other basic civic administrative offices
> where it is clearly a government building.
>
> This is to have a matching landuse to go with building=civic or
> amenity=townhall, and to differentiate basic townhall complexes from office
> building complexes in OSM.
>
> Some countries do not require a visit to a federal building more than once
> every couple years (DMV, passport renewal),
> while some countries require visiting their local and regional government
> offices more than once a month for various paperwork duties and centralized
> government duties.
>
> I was having a good discussion with martin about this, and he feels we
> don't need a landuse=civic or even a building=civic. I'd like to hear other
> opinions,
> as well as his reply to this narrowing of civic to civic_admin:
>
> - Is it narrow enough in scope now, or does the idea of ownership still
> nix it for you?
> - What would be the most minimal solution for differentiating the landuses
> for these buildings - make a straight landuse=townhall for townhalls only,
> or is the whole idea of differentiation bad to you?
>
>
> Javbw
>
>
> > Javbw
> >> Martin
>
> >> IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic.
> >
> > if I were back in San Deigo, I might agree with that, but having come to
> Japan, there is a definite and immediately recognizable distinction of city
> buildings, *and* they are used quite heavily.
> >
> > There is a known difference and a corresponding need for these
> facilities - at least the major buildings - to be treated above a standard
> office building. We recognize this with the amenity=townhall tag, and
> someone created building=civic for a reason, and I feel there should be a
> landuse to denote the complex's land differently than the standard
> commercial use building.
> >
> >> Both can be considered vague building types, but on a very generic
> level, I'd encourage everyone to use more specific building tags.
> >
> > generically, yea they are both office buildings.  I'm concerned
> primarily with the landuse to go with townhall complexes and other admin
> buildings.
> >
> >> It is also not clear from building=public what exactly this indicates
> (publicly owned and used by a public entity but not generally accessible,
> publicly owned and open to the general public, privately owned but publicly
> operated and publicly accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately
> used).
> >
> > If we start getting into building=public, then yes, there is a lot of
> ambiguity, which is why I took your suggestion and narrowed it to
> landuse=public_admin, i'll drop the others from this point forward.
> >
> > For the vast majority of the *administration* buildings, either in
> California or Japan (and I imagine elsewhere =] ), there is absolutely no
> ambiguity. Everyone knows the building types I listed :
> >
> >>> public_admin would the city halls, courthouses, state, and capital
> buildings, embassies, etc. This is the most important one, IMO.
> >
> > (along with US "federal buildings") are definitely government operated.
> There is zero ambiguity with those. Maybe public is a bad word.  how about
> landuse=civic_admin?
> >
> >> Generally I would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building
> type, and neither from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)
> >
> > You're right - those tags don't really show ownership. And I don't
> really care about ownership either - mostly purpose. We separate schools
> because we recognize that is a useful landuse to differentiate - like all
> the myriad of landuses - public or private, a park is a park, and a school
> is a school. But for this particular one (cuvic_admin), it is pretty
> obvious that it is a government operated building.
> >
> > I'm stating that there is a need for a landuse to show purpose for these
> heavily trafficked (known) civic buildings, just as we denote the others.
> They are more than an office building, just as a university is more than an
> office building complex with meeting rooms.
> >
> > The above is the main point of what I'm trying to say.
> >
> >> If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

[Satoshi IIDA]

> not sure but usually the sauna in public baths is somewhat separated so
> we might as well tag part of the object as sauna.

Yes, this is a very difficult point. I also could not define which is
better.
Maybe depending on the situation and country.

But from Japanese view, Onsen's main feature is as "public_bath" and
the type of bath is the sub category.
(and from operator's view, it is easier to make query :) )

If the facility announces they are "XXX's sauna" or given name, and they
are not onsen amenity,
it is better to tag them as "amenity=sauna" even in Japan.





2014-03-10 17:23 GMT+09:00 Richard Z. :

> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:44:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
> > > John
> > > some onsen are not associated with hot springs, but have hot sand
> instead.
> > Yes, but they are rare case.
> > Most of onsen are hot water bath.
> > So might be represented by adding following sub_tags.
> >
> > bath:sand_bath=[yes|no]  ; if the bathing amenity is sand bath (Suna_yu)
> or
> > not.
>
> that reminds me we also have hay_bath in the Alps, so that would also
> fit into it and may be helpful for other cases too.
>
> > bath:sauna=[yes|no]  ; if the bathing amenity has sauna facility.
> (Use
> > it when the main function of the amenity is public_bath. consider using
> > "amenity=sauna" when the main purpose of the amenity is sauna)
>
> not sure but usually the sauna in public baths is somewhat separated so
> we might as well tag part of the object as sauna.
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

[johnw]

To me, Amenity=onsen is similar to amenity=townhall.

for many onsen, there is no particular room you would say is " the onsen," just 
like no particular room is the "townhall", It is the title of the facility 
itself..  The purpose of the facility becomes it's name. 

There might be some small facilities where a certain building is "the onsen", 
or there is a separation between the shower/prep areas and the actual bathing 
area, or like a Hotel with a public onsen indoors, and and separate, outdoor 
bath(s) outside. 

Tag the amenity on the landuse for the hotel, or tag the amenity onto the hotel 
building with :outdoor=no, and :outdoor=yes on the actual outdoor bath 
building/pool. 

Same thing would go for a sauna. If the building itself is "bob's sauna" - the 
obviously tag the building or landuse. if only part of the area can be defined 
as "the sauna" - when the facility's purpose isn't to be a sauna, like a hotel 
complex or something, then just tag the sauna area by itself, right? 

Javbw

On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Satoshi IIDA  wrote:

> 
> > not sure but usually the sauna in public baths is somewhat separated so
> > we might as well tag part of the object as sauna.
> 
> Yes, this is a very difficult point. I also could not define which is better.
> Maybe depending on the situation and country.
> 
> But from Japanese view, Onsen's main feature is as "public_bath" and 
> the type of bath is the sub category.
> (and from operator's view, it is easier to make query :) )
> 
> If the facility announces they are "XXX's sauna" or given name, and they are 
> not onsen amenity,
> it is better to tag them as "amenity=sauna" even in Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-10 17:23 GMT+09:00 Richard Z. :
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:44:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
> > > John
> > > some onsen are not associated with hot springs, but have hot sand instead.
> > Yes, but they are rare case.
> > Most of onsen are hot water bath.
> > So might be represented by adding following sub_tags.
> >
> > bath:sand_bath=[yes|no]  ; if the bathing amenity is sand bath (Suna_yu) or
> > not.
> 
> that reminds me we also have hay_bath in the Alps, so that would also
> fit into it and may be helpful for other cases too.
> 
> > bath:sauna=[yes|no]  ; if the bathing amenity has sauna facility. (Use
> > it when the main function of the amenity is public_bath. consider using
> > "amenity=sauna" when the main purpose of the amenity is sauna)
> 
> not sure but usually the sauna in public baths is somewhat separated so
> we might as well tag part of the object as sauna.
> 
> Richard
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Satoshi IIDA
> mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
> twitter: @nyampire
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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