[Tagging] pre-RFC: relation type=cluster/group
I was going to write a proposal for relation type=cluster (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Cluster). Looking for real-world examples, I noticed that there's a relation type=group for the Great Lakes (id=1124369). What do you like better? type=group or type=cluster? -- 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] pre-RFC: relation type=cluster/group
Hi - Does relation=site help? It sounds to me like a very similar concept: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Site Best Dan 2015-01-06 10:36 GMT+00:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > I was going to write a proposal for relation type=cluster > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Cluster). Looking for > real-world examples, I noticed that there's a relation type=group for the > Great Lakes (id=1124369). > > What do you like better? type=group or type=cluster? > > -- > 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pre-RFC: relation type=cluster/group
Oh, sorry, I see you mention it in the proposal. Still I don't see what would be bad about using "site" for the examples in your proposal, but I'll leave that there since you presumably feel differently. Dan 2015-01-06 10:18 GMT+00:00 Dan S : > Hi - > > Does relation=site help? It sounds to me like a very similar concept: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Site > > Best > Dan > > 2015-01-06 10:36 GMT+00:00 Friedrich Volkmann : >> I was going to write a proposal for relation type=cluster >> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Cluster). Looking for >> real-world examples, I noticed that there's a relation type=group for the >> Great Lakes (id=1124369). >> >> What do you like better? type=group or type=cluster? >> >> -- >> 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag
And now code is fixed, rendering on website will change after releasing next version - https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1196 2015-01-04 16:07 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > amenity=place of worship that is not rendered as area is a bug > Thanks for a report - it is now on bugtracker as > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1193 > > 2015-01-04 15:20 GMT+01:00 Dave F. : > >> Hi >> >> Now that the render amendments have come through, It seems the comment >> below is inaccurate. It's not being rendered at all. Was that the >> intention? I was unaware the grey render was considered as 'building', >> especially since adding building=yes changed the colour. >> >> Areas are mapped as religious that, as well a church building, include >> the likes of car parks, cemeteries, community halls etc. Maybe mapnik needs >> to show landuse=religious to compensate. >> >> Cheers >> Dave F. >> >> On 02/01/2015 15:17, Matthijs Melissen wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In particular, areas tagged with amenity=place_of_worship or >>> aeroway=terminal that do not have a building tag will be no longer >>> rendered as a building. >>> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.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] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag
On 06/01/2015 02:48, John Willis wrote: I thought tat was a feature, to actually deprecate the landuse from the buildings, so we don't have the similar issue again of a building and area rendered the same. (at the risk of going around in circles) in the Western Christian tradition, it's usually a building that most of the worshipping takes place within. I wouldn't assume that this was the case with all religions, though - a non-building area may be an actual place of worship (and it may have buildings in it too). Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag
I want landuse=religious to map all the buddhist and shinto temple complexes in Japan. some of them are huge, dotted with individual shrines, temples, sacred waterfalls, and maintained gardens. even small local temples and shrines usually have more than a few things on their location (a few statures, a bell tower, garden, cemetery, and main temple building). in the past, the shinto and buddhist temples were forced to share ground, so you get shinto stuff next to buddhist stuff in many places (which is why people follow a mix of shinto and buddhist practices in Japan), so it’s nice to have a “this place is religious” landuse, and individual POW for buildings/things that have their own name and religious tag. Shinto is where you get weird stuff, like the married rocks, sacred trees, or the spot with an interesting natural feature that is ”worshipped” - but for the vast majority of the temples and shrines here, they are very similar to a western church grounds in feature party. Javbw > On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:41 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: > > On 06/01/2015 02:48, John Willis wrote: >> I thought tat was a feature, to actually deprecate the landuse from the >> buildings, so we don't have the similar issue again of a building and area >> rendered the same. >> > > (at the risk of going around in circles) in the Western Christian tradition, > it's usually a building that most of the worshipping takes place within. I > wouldn't assume that this was the case with all religions, though - a > non-building area may be an actual place of worship (and it may have > buildings in it too). > > Cheers, > > Andy > > ___ > 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] landuse=religious and amenity=place of worship
A while ago I had identified the following use-cases / situations, which I now extend and my preferred tagging to them. Please note that the focus of "amenity=place of worship" should be on a ceremonial place, while "landuse=religious" can comprise auxiliary structures. Case 1 A building where worshipping ceremonies focus, surrounded by land which has a relation to the religion, and holds structures that are not used for the act of worshipping. The building often has architectural significance and stands out as a landmark. Building: building=mosque, amenity=place_of_worship Other buildings: building=* (according to specific function) Land: landuse=religious Case 2 Places of worshipping that are not focused on a particular building, the ceremony is performed in a spacial manner, potentially in open space. Land where the ceremony is performed: amenity=place_of_worship If there is land around with auxiliary functions, e.g. as car parks: landuse=religious That landuse could even hold multiple places_of_worship, as in johnw's examples below. Case 3 Land which has a relation to the religion, holding e.g. administrative office buildings, seminar rooms, etc., but no particular building for worshipping ceremonies. Land: landuse=religious Buildings: building=* (according to specific function) Case 4 Buildings that were erected for worshipping, thus still have the architectural significance and landmark character, but are now used for secular purposes, such as concert theatres or climbing halls. Some could be reactivated for the religious purpose by bringing the altar back. Building: building=church, amenity=theatre Case 5 Building that is used for ceremonial worshipping in dense urban environment, with no dedicated land around, e.g. a church wall-to-wall in a row of apartment buildings, thus the primary use of the land is residential: Building: building=church, amenity=place_of_worship Land around: landuse=residential Case 6 Specific room for worshipping in a residential building, with no land around dedicated to the religious purpose: Building: building=residential Node for the room: amenity=place_of_worship Land around: landuse=residential johnw wrote on 2015-01-06 23:03: I want landuse=religious to map all the buddhist and shinto temple complexes in Japan. some of them are huge, dotted with individual shrines, temples, sacred waterfalls, and maintained gardens. even small local temples and shrines usually have more than a few things on their location (a few statures, a bell tower, garden, cemetery, and main temple building). in the past, the shinto and buddhist temples were forced to share ground, so you get shinto stuff next to buddhist stuff in many places (which is why people follow a mix of shinto and buddhist practices in Japan), so it’s nice to have a “this place is religious” landuse, and individual POW for buildings/things that have their own name and religious tag. Shinto is where you get weird stuff, like the married rocks, sacred trees, or the spot with an interesting natural feature that is ”worshipped” - but for the vast majority of the temples and shrines here, they are very similar to a western church grounds in feature party. Javbw On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:41 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 06/01/2015 02:48, John Willis wrote: I thought tat was a feature, to actually deprecate the landuse from the buildings, so we don't have the similar issue again of a building and area rendered the same. (at the risk of going around in circles) in the Western Christian tradition, it's usually a building that most of the worshipping takes place within. I wouldn't assume that this was the case with all religions, though - a non-building area may be an actual place of worship (and it may have buildings in it too). Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] barrier=net ?
There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to add it into the wiki. For many golf courses, driving ranges, and baseball fields world wide, and many school grounds in Japan, they may have a fence or wall, and in addition a separate expansive and very tall netting, in some cases 5 to 10 stores tall for a driving range, supported by steel or concrete poles (that look like telephone poles). In many instances, the net alone is the sole barrier between a golf course and adjacent property, forgoing a wall or fence, when trespassing or privacy concerns is not an issue. I don’t think these kinds of nets fits very well with =fence, so I’d like to add the value to the wiki page (and then for rendering in -carto) Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=religious and amenity=place of worship
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > A while ago I had identified the following use-cases / situations, > which I now extend and my preferred tagging to them. +1 All sounds logical to me. Just a fountain at the mall, or car parking, or the building where they store the garbage is not directly related to commerce, it is still part of a Mall complex, so it would be landuse=retail, and similarly if it was part of a religious complex, it would be landuse=religious. The rest of it, detailing the inclusion of POW into a retail or residential environment (there are a TON of churches that take up a spot in small strip-malls), it all sounds great - the Strip-mall and it’s landuse would still be landuse=retail, but the rented building/space are or a single node would be POW. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?
I have been tagging the vertical "netting" at golf courses as "barrier=fence" In some cases there is more or less horizontal netting, and in that case I agree that "barrier=fence" does not fit. Mike On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:41 PM, johnw wrote: > There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to add it into the wiki. > > For many golf courses, driving ranges, and baseball fields world wide, and > many school grounds in Japan, they may have a fence or wall, and in addition > a separate expansive and very tall netting, in some cases 5 to 10 stores tall > for a driving range, supported by steel or concrete poles (that look like > telephone poles). > > In many instances, the net alone is the sole barrier between a golf course > and adjacent property, forgoing a wall or fence, when trespassing or privacy > concerns is not an issue. > > I don’t think these kinds of nets fits very well with =fence, so I’d like to > add the value to the wiki page (and then for rendering in -carto) > > > Javbw. > ___ > 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] barrier=net ?
I think there is a big difference between a 5 story tall net (held up by massive poles) and a fence. If it was a 5 story tall fence or wall, we'd call it a building or a dam or something. These giant nets usually found near ballsports need their own tag - or maybe a new value of fence=net or something? But considering the tag value is in use, it might be better just to document it. Javbw Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > I have been tagging the vertical "netting" at golf courses as "barrier=fence" > > In some cases there is more or less horizontal netting, and in that > case I agree that "barrier=fence" does not fit. > > Mike > >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:41 PM, johnw wrote: >> There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to add it into the wiki. >> >> For many golf courses, driving ranges, and baseball fields world wide, and >> many school grounds in Japan, they may have a fence or wall, and in addition >> a separate expansive and very tall netting, in some cases 5 to 10 stores >> tall for a driving range, supported by steel or concrete poles (that look >> like telephone poles). >> >> In many instances, the net alone is the sole barrier between a golf course >> and adjacent property, forgoing a wall or fence, when trespassing or privacy >> concerns is not an issue. >> >> I don’t think these kinds of nets fits very well with =fence, so I’d like to >> add the value to the wiki page (and then for rendering in -carto) >> >> >> Javbw. >> ___ >> 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] barrier=net ?
On 07.01.2015 02:43, John Willis wrote: > I think there is a big difference between a 5 story tall net (held up by > massive poles) and a fence. If it was a 5 story tall fence or wall, we'd call > it a building or a dam or something. I would call it a fence or wall anyway. What is your minimum height for a net, and your maximum height for a fence? If it's just about the height, what's wrong with a height=* attribute? -- 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] barrier=net ?
What's the difference between an alley and a motorway besides width? Something about a giant flowing net 5 stores tall visible for kilometers away and a pice of netting used to hold a poodle in a yard seem similarly different, besides height. Javbw. > On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > >> On 07.01.2015 02:43, John Willis wrote: >> I think there is a big difference between a 5 story tall net (held up by >> massive poles) and a fence. If it was a 5 story tall fence or wall, we'd >> call it a building or a dam or something. > > I would call it a fence or wall anyway. What is your minimum height for a > net, and your maximum height for a fence? If it's just about the height, > what's wrong with a height=* attribute? > > -- > 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?
I've also used it to tag nets in the water used to provide swimming areas safe from sharks. On 07/01/2015 11:42 am, "johnw" wrote: > There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to add it into the wiki. > > For many golf courses, driving ranges, and baseball fields world wide, and > many school grounds in Japan, they may have a fence or wall, and in > addition a separate expansive and very tall netting, in some cases 5 to 10 > stores tall for a driving range, supported by steel or concrete poles (that > look like telephone poles). > > In many instances, the net alone is the sole barrier between a golf > course and adjacent property, forgoing a wall or fence, when trespassing or > privacy concerns is not an issue. > > I don’t think these kinds of nets fits very well with =fence, so I’d like > to add the value to the wiki page (and then for rendering in -carto) > > > Javbw. > ___ > 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] landuse=religious and amenity=place of worship
"building=* (according to specific function)" - building tag should rather describe how it is constructed. For example warehouse used as place of worship should be tagged as [building=warehouse, amenity=place_of_worship]. There is also case 1.5 - building with focus of worship (for example with altar) and open space surrounding this building is used as a place of worship together with building - for example replicas of the grotto at Lourdes, with building resembling cave structure. Random photo of one: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/93824075.jpg Wikipedia lists some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_grotto 2015-01-07 0:29 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > A while ago I had identified the following use-cases / situations, > which I now extend and my preferred tagging to them. > > Please note that the focus of "amenity=place of worship" should be > on a ceremonial place, while "landuse=religious" can comprise auxiliary > structures. > > Case 1 > A building where worshipping ceremonies focus, surrounded by land which > has a relation > to the religion, and holds structures that are not used for the act of > worshipping. > The building often has architectural significance and stands out as a > landmark. > > Building: building=mosque, amenity=place_of_worship > Other buildings: building=* (according to specific function) > Land: landuse=religious > > Case 2 > Places of worshipping that are not focused on a particular building, the > ceremony is performed in a spacial manner, potentially in open space. > > Land where the ceremony is performed: amenity=place_of_worship > If there is land around with auxiliary functions, e.g. as car parks: > landuse=religious > That landuse could even hold multiple places_of_worship, as in johnw's > examples below. > > Case 3 > Land which has a relation to the religion, holding e.g. administrative > office > buildings, seminar rooms, etc., but no particular building for worshipping > ceremonies. > > Land: landuse=religious > Buildings: building=* (according to specific function) > > Case 4 > Buildings that were erected for worshipping, thus still have the > architectural significance and landmark character, but are now used for > secular purposes, such as concert theatres or climbing halls. Some could be > reactivated for the religious purpose by bringing the altar back. > > Building: building=church, amenity=theatre > > Case 5 > Building that is used for ceremonial worshipping in dense urban > environment, > with no dedicated land around, e.g. a church wall-to-wall in a row of > apartment buildings, thus the primary use of the land is residential: > > Building: building=church, amenity=place_of_worship > Land around: landuse=residential > > Case 6 > > Specific room for worshipping in a residential building, > with no land around dedicated to the religious purpose: > > Building: building=residential > Node for the room: amenity=place_of_worship > Land around: landuse=residential > > > johnw wrote on 2015-01-06 23:03: > >> I want landuse=religious to map all the buddhist and shinto temple >> complexes in Japan. some of them are huge, dotted with individual shrines, >> temples, sacred waterfalls, and maintained gardens. even small local >> temples and shrines usually have more than a few things on their location >> (a few statures, a bell tower, garden, cemetery, and main temple building). >> >> in the past, the shinto and buddhist temples were forced to share ground, >> so you get shinto stuff next to buddhist stuff in many places (which is why >> people follow a mix of shinto and buddhist practices in Japan), so it’s >> nice to have a “this place is religious” landuse, and individual POW for >> buildings/things that have their own name and religious tag. >> >> Shinto is where you get weird stuff, like the married rocks, sacred >> trees, or the spot with an interesting natural feature that is ”worshipped” >> - but for the vast majority of the temples and shrines here, they are very >> similar to a western church grounds in feature party. >> >> Javbw >> >> >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:41 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: >>> >>> On 06/01/2015 02:48, John Willis wrote: >>> I thought tat was a feature, to actually deprecate the landuse from the buildings, so we don't have the similar issue again of a building and area rendered the same. >>> (at the risk of going around in circles) in the Western Christian >>> tradition, it's usually a building that most of the worshipping takes place >>> within. I wouldn't assume that this was the case with all religions, >>> though - a non-building area may be an actual place of worship (and it may >>> have buildings in it too). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Andy >>> >> > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.ope
