Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? This guy did it : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish coast... regards m On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:12 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 29/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > >> On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > well even if the issues were nonexistent, mapping the area of a bay seems > > to me like mapping an artificially introduced concept for which there is > > very little real world use or recognition otherwise. > > Huh ? Forget about maps and osm for a moment. A bay is "a body of > water mostly surrounded by land". You're "in" a bay, not "at" a bay. > It has a size, it's not a point in space with a buoy marking the spot. > It's an area. > > The fact that a lot of sources have simplified it down to a point is > an entirely different issue. But there's no reason that, with modern > tools and manpower, we can't make a better job than those historical > sources. And remember that when you see a rendered bay label, you > don't actually know wether the source (wether it's some vector data or > an idea in the sailor's brain) was an area or a point to begin with. > > > Also bays with very > > flat or deep geometry will result in disproportionately small areas so > > mappers may feel compelled to do some ugly workarounds if the name of the > > bay isn't shown as expected. > > Disproportionate compared to what ? And fairly flat coastlines are a > good example of cases that are tricky for algorythms, where the human > mapper can probably make a better decision. > > > So I would say > > * if there is some other reason valid to map the bay as area, do it > > pros: > - bays are areas in real life > - it makes geocoding trivial > - it makes knowing which bays to render preferably easy (bigger bays > first) > - it enables representing nested bays > - it is deterministic, as opposed to relying on a heuristic algorythm > cons: > - relations are harder to work with than nodes > - the extent of bays is usually fuzzy; nodes make that fuzzyness obvious > - most of the existing data (osm and potential imports) are nodes > > YMMV, those are reasons enough for me. > > > * something better needs to be invented for hinting the renderer. > > It's not just the renderer, I actually think that the geocoding > usacase is more important. And geocoding requires an area, wether it > is provided in readily-usable form as osm data, or by a > heuristics-based algorythm that infers it from a node. > > ___ > 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] natural=bay as nodes are evil
A lot of the bay points were imported. Many bays do not have firm boundaries. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?
I've had exactly the same difficulty... tracktype/sac_scale/track_visibility/surface none of which capture the difference between a road a Toyota corolla could handle, and something that would be hard for a dirt bike to handle. Difficult roads usually are so because of: steepness / lack of maintenance / clearance required / seasonal moisture. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > And both tags are > definitive, whereas "maxheight:signed=no" (or whatever) is just > waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey. No. The survey is done : "there is no legal height restriction under this bridge". Of course, anyone is free to come back and add more tags like the physical height or the material and 3d shape of the bridge, etc. But the most interesting information for apps checking clearance (e.g. for routing) is there => no legal restriction here. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On 30/10/2014, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:24 PM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote: > >> And both tags are >> definitive, whereas "maxheight:signed=no" (or whatever) is just >> waiting for a better tooled or experienced mapper to do the survey. > > No. The survey is done : "there is no legal height restriction under > this bridge". Of course, anyone is free to come back and add more tags > like the physical height or the material and 3d shape of the bridge, > etc. But the most interesting information for apps checking clearance > (e.g. for routing) is there => no legal restriction here. Counter-no :p If there's a maxheight:signed tag but no maxheight tag, the survey isn't done. I agree with the definition of the plain "maxheight" key from the wiki : > In most cases this expresses a legal limit, though there are places where > this is used differently. Note that if it is desirable to establish a > difference between a legal and a physical maxheight, this should be the > lesser of the two. So "maxheight" technically isn't the legal limit, it's the smaller limit between maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal. In general if there's a legal limit it'll be the smaller one, but one could imagine a 4m limit on the road and a no legally-specified limit on a 3m bridge. If there's no legal limit, you should still add the "maxheight" tag. It's the tag that routers actually care about, it's important. Differenciating between maxheight:physical and maxheight:legal is a nuance that most people do not care about. Estimate the physical limit and leave a fixme if you've got no better source. If you want to tag the fact that there is no legal limit or no sign, use a different key than "maxheight" (maxheight:legal and maxheight:signed comme to mind). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: > Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could > you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? > > This guy did it : > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg > > I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish coast... note that the big bodies of water such as the bay of biscay have been "defined" by the international hydropgraphic organization, wikipedia provides the link. Those definitions should be probably mapped, but most likely with a special tag rather than our natural=bay because their definition of gulf of mexico is obviously not compatible with our definition of bay (refering to the sentence fragment "in Cuba, through this island to the meridian of 83°W" which includes a landmas to the definition) Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
On 30.10.2014 12:51, Richard Z. wrote: their definition of gulf of mexico is obviously not compatible with our definition of bay IMHO: this has some similarities to definition of regions like "the Alps" or "the Rocky Mountains"... Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote: > Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could > you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? > This guy did it: > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4 > /s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg > I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish coast... Would it be possible that locals around that region of the coastline would know it better than tagging@ ? ...If so, then the usual argument for OSM taking advantage of mappers' local knowledge applies also here and we should defer determining that boundary point more accurately to a local mapper. -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.23.0
2014-10-29 21:56 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dguest_house as currently > defined > fits "private residence where a single bedroom is made available to > tourists". > > It is even mentioned - "ranging from purpose-built guest houses > to family-based Bed&Breakfast" > btw.: that wiki page seems to have other issues as well. What is the reason to exclude places with staff available 24/7? Can't they be guest houses any more? What is the tag for a guest house with staff available 24/7? I agree that a guest house (the ones that I know in Germany that are called like this) and a bed and breakfast are (or can be) different kind of accomodation places. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
Hi, I'm pleased to announce the start of voting process for the Street Cabinet proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_cabinet It's been a while this proposal hasn't been commented and tagging scheme sounds consistent. These features are useful on map for accessibility and infrastructure knowledge. Don't hesitate to give your feedback at the bottom of the page. Many thanks in advance, all the best. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.23.0
If staff are available 24/7 I would call that a hotel. Phil (trigpoint ) On Thu Oct 30 2014 13:24:02 GMT+ (GMT), Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-10-29 21:56 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dguest_house as currently > > defined > > fits "private residence where a single bedroom is made available to > > tourists". > > > > It is even mentioned - "ranging from purpose-built guest houses > > to family-based Bed&Breakfast" > > > > > btw.: that wiki page seems to have other issues as well. What is the > reason to exclude places with staff available 24/7? Can't they be guest > houses any more? What is the tag for a guest house with staff available > 24/7? > > I agree that a guest house (the ones that I know in Germany that are called > like this) and a bed and breakfast are (or can be) different kind of > accomodation places. > > cheers, > Martin > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.23.0
There are some different terms for lodging, bed & breakfast, guest house, boarding house, pension, inn, hostel, motel, appartment house (?), chalet, and hotel. Guest house seems to be (plz correct me) a generic term for bed & breakfast as well as pension as well as inn. Maybe these should be sortet out somewhat useful... and it should be matched with, say, our German terms. BTW, rendering of typical "Gasthaus/Gasthof" which mainly is a restaurant as well as offers some rooms to stay -> these should be rendered differently than a guest house! Currently they are rendered like a pension, omitting the (most important) restaurant part. /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] mixed guesthouse/hotel with restaurants (was Re: [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.23.0)
Andreas Labres wrote on 30.10.2014 15:06: > There are some different terms for lodging, bed & breakfast, guest house, > boarding house, pension, inn, hostel, motel, appartment house (?), chalet, and > hotel. Guest house seems to be (plz correct me) a generic term for bed & > breakfast as well as pension as well as inn. Maybe these should be sortet out > somewhat useful... and it should be matched with, say, our German terms. > > BTW, rendering of typical "Gasthaus/Gasthof" which mainly is a restaurant as > well as offers some rooms to stay -> these should be rendered differently > than a > guest house! Currently they are rendered like a pension, omitting the (most > important) restaurant part. Can you give an example? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85069658 omittes the guest_house information. rendering both (hotel or guesthouse with restaurant) was rejected here as a wrong tagging: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/969 -- greetings Holger Jeromin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] mixed guesthouse/hotel with restaurants (was Re: [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.23.0)
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 15:15 +0100, Holger Jeromin wrote: > Andreas Labres wrote on 30.10.2014 15:06: > > There are some different terms for lodging, bed & breakfast, guest house, > > boarding house, pension, inn, hostel, motel, appartment house (?), chalet, > > and > > hotel. Guest house seems to be (plz correct me) a generic term for bed & > > breakfast as well as pension as well as inn. Maybe these should be sortet > > out > > somewhat useful... and it should be matched with, say, our German terms. > > > > BTW, rendering of typical "Gasthaus/Gasthof" which mainly is a restaurant as > > well as offers some rooms to stay -> these should be rendered differently > > than a > > guest house! Currently they are rendered like a pension, omitting the (most > > important) restaurant part. > > Can you give an example? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85069658 > omittes the guest_house information. > > rendering both (hotel or guesthouse with restaurant) was rejected here > as a wrong tagging: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/969 > There was a similar discussion on tagging of pub/hotels, which are common in the UK. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-September/068245.html Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
A minimal remark : Given that british english spelling is usually prerferred for tags, the colour description tag should be "colour" rather than "color". Art. Le 30 oct. 2014 14:28, "François Lacombe" < francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu> a écrit : > Hi, > > I'm pleased to announce the start of voting process for the Street Cabinet > proposal > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_cabinet > > It's been a while this proposal hasn't been commented and tagging scheme > sounds consistent. > These features are useful on map for accessibility and infrastructure > knowledge. > > Don't hesitate to give your feedback at the bottom of the page. > > > Many thanks in advance, > all the best. > > > *François Lacombe* > > francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu > http://www.infos-reseaux.com > > ___ > 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] natural=bay as nodes are evil
I think this appears to be the reference Richard mentioned: http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could > > you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? > > > > This guy did it : > > > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg > > > > I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish > coast... > > note that the big bodies of water such as the bay of biscay have been > "defined" > by the international hydropgraphic organization, wikipedia provides the > link. > > Those definitions should be probably mapped, but most likely with a > special tag > rather than our natural=bay because their definition of gulf of mexico is > obviously > not compatible with our definition of bay (refering to the sentence > fragment "in Cuba, > through this island to the meridian of 83°W" which includes a landmas to > the > definition) > > Richard > > ___ > 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] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
You're definetly right, thank you. Furthermore, colour is widely used http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/colour I don't know why I didn't realize this before. Proposal and example are up to date. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2014-10-30 15:48 GMT+01:00 Art Penteur : > A minimal remark : > > Given that british english spelling is usually prerferred for tags, the > colour description tag should be "colour" rather than "color". > > Art. > Le 30 oct. 2014 14:28, "François Lacombe" < > francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu> a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> I'm pleased to announce the start of voting process for the Street >> Cabinet proposal >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_cabinet >> >> It's been a while this proposal hasn't been commented and tagging scheme >> sounds consistent. >> These features are useful on map for accessibility and infrastructure >> knowledge. >> >> Don't hesitate to give your feedback at the bottom of the page. >> >> >> Many thanks in advance, >> all the best. >> >> >> *François Lacombe* >> >> francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu >> http://www.infos-reseaux.com >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > ___ > 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] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
Hi, I like the proposal, and the picture is very sympathetic. I would suggest to consider garbage collection cabinets as well, https://www.google.com/search?q=müllschrank&tbm=isch which are found in some towns to collect waste individually per house and are often lockable (as opposed to public recycling containers). Also it would be good to have guidelines at what size the structure is considered a cabinet, and where building starts. For example power substations could come in any possible size. tom François Lacombe wrote on 2014-10-30 14:25: Hi, I'm pleased to announce the start of voting process for the Street Cabinet proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_cabinet It's been a while this proposal hasn't been commented and tagging scheme sounds consistent. These features are useful on map for accessibility and infrastructure knowledge. Don't hesitate to give your feedback at the bottom of the page. Many thanks in advance, all the best. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
I would suggest street_cabinet=garbage for the equipment you've mentioned. A cabinet is a feature where workers can't enter. A building is the opposite. Then, substations and other stuff can be divided between those two sorts. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2014-10-30 17:37 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > Hi, > I like the proposal, and the picture is very sympathetic. > > I would suggest to consider garbage collection cabinets as well, > https://www.google.com/search?q=müllschrank&tbm=isch > which are found in some towns to collect waste individually per house > and are often lockable (as opposed to public recycling containers). > > Also it would be good to have guidelines at what size the structure > is considered a cabinet, and where building starts. For example > power substations could come in any possible size. > > tom > > François Lacombe wrote on 2014-10-30 14:25: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm pleased to announce the start of voting process for the Street >> Cabinet proposal >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_cabinet >> >> It's been a while this proposal hasn't been commented and tagging scheme >> sounds consistent. >> These features are useful on map for accessibility and infrastructure >> knowledge. >> >> Don't hesitate to give your feedback at the bottom of the page. >> >> >> Many thanks in advance, >> all the best. >> >> >> *François Lacombe* >> >> francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu >> http://www.infos-reseaux.com >> > > > ___ > 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] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
François Lacombe wrote on 2014-10-30 21:42: I would suggest street_cabinet=garbage for the equipment you've mentioned. maybe =waste is more consistent with existing tags such as amenity=waste disposal, amenity=waste basket or generator:source=waste Garbage is less used in tags so far. A cabinet is a feature where workers can't enter. A building is the opposite. > Then, substations and other stuff can be divided between those two sorts. That's a very plausible distinction and should be documented. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
I was going to suggest "Waste Transfer station" http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_transfer_station But after reading the wiki for it, it was not at all what I expected. In America, at least in most suburban areas, waste is collected from individual residences via bins/cans on the street with(enormous) trucks, so there is no static transfer points whatsoever, it goes from curb to landfill directly. In Japan, There are static waste collection "Garbage stations" [ゴミ ステーション] per street or area, and are often large, steel, screened cages that are stuffed full of 45 liter bags. There is no possible way fro a truck to service the myriad of little tiny buildings, some of them only on walking paths - even in cities of 100K people, so there is a garbage station for every 20-30 houses or so, or one for a large apartment or company. Temporary ones are merely nets to keep the crows off the bags, but most are permanent ones worth mapping. My local garbage station (2 cabinets) http://goo.gl/maps/VLgMP a full one nearby http://goo.gl/maps/eqVS3 although some are old and look disused, they are used daily or weekly by the populace, and mapping them would be useful on a very local level (like the cabinets in general). Please add a line item for waste transfer, similar to the postal transfer - this is a missing step in the garbage collection, and a cabinet that have been overlooked. Also, I suggest also adding "sliding" for the door hinge option (as the second one has no hinges) Javbw On Oct 31, 2014, at 6:08 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > François Lacombe wrote on 2014-10-30 21:42: >> I would suggest street_cabinet=garbage for the equipment you've mentioned. > > maybe =waste is more consistent with existing tags such as > amenity=waste disposal, amenity=waste basket or > generator:source=waste > > Garbage is less used in tags so far. > >> A cabinet is a feature where workers can't enter. >> A building is the opposite. > > Then, substations and other stuff can be divided between those two sorts. > > That's a very plausible distinction and should be documented. > > tom > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
