Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On 12.07.2014 09:59, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Most of these are from the Antarctica import [1] where they mostly > comply with the definition quite well although in some part areas have > a thin, patchy scree cover. > > The Corine natural=rock areas on the other hand are not > natural=bare_rock, neither factually as you can easily check with a few > examples nor by definition [2] where it is simply described as "Scree, > cliffs, rocks outcrops, including active erosion, rocks and reef flats > situated above the high-water mark". I wouldn't have started this thread without checking a few examples. These areas are predominant in high regions of the Alps, the Pyrenees and of Corsica. They look "rocky" on areal images. The definition you cited conforms with natural=bare_rock, except for scree, which is natural=scree. Some of the areas could also be tagged as natural=fell. But at least natural=bare_rock wouldn't be any wronger than natural=rock. One difference between the Corine import and the Antartica import is that the former was done before the tag natural=bare_rock was invented, while the latter was done when it had already been approved. I suppose that the Corine import would have created natural=bare_rock areas if that tag had been around by that time. > Based on this it would probably not be a good idea to mechanically > re-tag these to natural=bare_rock but this is something that should be > discussed at the appropriate place (i.e. in imports). In my opinion > these areas would need manual reviewing and fixing before any > meaningful tags can be applied. In many cases it might be easier to > remap the area from scratch. If these need remapping, it might be better to refine the definition first, which is my primary goal anyway. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On 12.07.2014 08:25, malenki wrote: > When a proposal just sits in a wiki and doesn't get spread actively by > it's author on OSM channels (forums, mailing lists) it doesn't get much > attention. Even /when/ it is spread a lot of people (I included) > often prefer to let it be. Unfortunately, I am no politician who can spend all of his time for campaigns. > The whole proposal is imho one of a mechanical edit. The proposal is about refining a tag definition in the wiki. I feared that the proposal could be voted down with respect to existing data not conforming to the new definition. That's why I needed to dig into that data issue. It's kind of a chicken-egg dilemma. You cannot get a proposal approved when existing data is dubious, and you cannot get a data cleanup accepted when the definition in the wiki is dubious. As a result, we stay with rotten definitions and rotten data for all time going. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Problem with access=designated
According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial access=designated "often includes ways that have no legal dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club" Is it OK to use this tag in situations like this? It would make access=designated nearly meaningless and idea of moving people, tagging, software, map styles and documentation to using access=official for legally binding designations of roads seems to not be the best idea. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convert imported natural=rock areas to bare_rock
On Sunday 13 July 2014, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > > > The Corine natural=rock areas on the other hand are not > > natural=bare_rock, neither factually as you can easily check with a > > few examples nor by definition [2] where it is simply described as > > "Scree, cliffs, rocks outcrops, including active erosion, rocks and > > reef flats situated above the high-water mark". > > I wouldn't have started this thread without checking a few examples. > These areas are predominant in high regions of the Alps, the Pyrenees > and of Corsica. They look "rocky" on areal images. The definition you > cited conforms with natural=bare_rock, except for scree, which is > natural=scree. Some of the areas could also be tagged as > natural=fell. But at least natural=bare_rock wouldn't be any wronger > than natural=rock. Replacing one wrong with another wrong does not make it right. ;-) But even worse this would dilute the meaning of natural=bare_rock. The natural=rock tag is not used anywhere else on larger polygons so there is fairly little harm in having these in the database. But if you are worried about this retag them with some specific tag like corine=3.3.2. It might appear if you do not look too closely as if some of the areas tagged natural=rock in France are indeed mostly bare bedrock but as said overall they mostly are a mixture of all kinds of stuff from bedrock to mud with mostly one thing in common, that is they are largely lacking vegetation. natural=bare_rock OTOH is predominantly exposed bedrock The fairly typical landscape in both Pyrenees and Corsica of rocky terrain with scattered trees, scrubs and grass, like: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:France_Pyr%C3%A9n%C3%A9es_Lac_N%C3%A8re_%28Vall%C3%A9e_de_Bar%C3%A8ges%29.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Port_du_Marcadau_-_versant_espagnol.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Etang_de_caraussan_aerien.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Cambal%C3%A8s.jpg does not qualify as natural=bare_rock in total even if locally there is exposed bedrock of course. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
