Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

[Paul Johnson]

Not sure what problem this is trying to solve.  US CB usage doesn't do
offsets for transmit and receive typically (some radios can do it but it's
not within the US spec), and local company specific usage is typically
well-signposted in an obvious location as necessary, with the de facto
running channels being generally 19, or if it's a high traffic area like a
major city, 17 for north/south and 19 for east/west; whatever's noisiest is
probably the local's channel if it's not 4 or 6 (which tend to often get
used to shoot skip when conditions are right).

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Sam Dyck  wrote:

> Greetings
>
> This is an RFC for my proposal, which can be found at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Haul_Channel
>
> Thanks
>
> Sam
>
> ___
> 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] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo 
wrote:

> On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
>
> > I know it's a messy dividing line.  I see it as important context to
> > current day mapping.
>
> That's a fair point, but I've seen it pushed beyond reason too many
> times.
>

I've also seen the opposite mapping issue, where an abandoned railway was
deleted from the map,
when in fact large chunks still exist.




> Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then
> it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway
> tag, you should remove the railway=abandoned tag.
>

I don't see that railway=razed damages highway=cycleway.

The present day cycleway may well have photos of that same old railway on
interpretive signs.  The current cycleway may in fact be called a "rail to
trail".  Some people seek those out explicitly, because they're associated
with a flat grade and gentle curves.

In cases like this the history is* a part of a present day object.*


--
Railroads are special in part because they're large and long, far bigger
than any abandoned shop or razed cottage.
They leave a major footprint on the future world, one that's often apparent
well after the last bit of gravel is dug out and planted over.

It's more like tagging "shoe shop in a landmark beaux arts former post
office" than "turn left where the fruit stand used to be".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> 2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge :
>
>>
>> How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large
>> structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
>>
>
> I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be rendered. I just said it's not
> default layers job to render everything that someone needs for a project.
>

It's for this reason I really miss the Osmarender layer...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bird hides

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-09 22:33 GMT+01:00 Andy Mabbett :

> It would be adavtagus to tag which side or sides have viewing screens
> (in other words, which way the hide faces).
>
> ...
>
> There are pictures at:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_hide
>
> and:
>
>   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bird_hides
>
> Suggestions?
>



there is the established tag "direction" which describes the "direction of
a feature". Maybe use the same semantics on a key like "viewing_direction"?
Multiple directions could be expressed with semicolon separators, and you
might add a range, like viewing_direction=NW-NE  or use degrees like
"315-45" (assuming that north is at 0 and that the range is indicated
clockwise).

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-09 20:41 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

> What *use* can a map *reader* make of event hall data?
> Personally I would find the existence of a event rental space interesting,
> but always defer to the official website for any sense of
> capacity/size/hours.



yes, for precise information, but "capacity" will give you an idea how big
this is (along goes usually also importance), so you might decide to render
an event location with 2 people capacity much earlier than one with 30
people capacity.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-08 23:08 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> The way I search for a relevant tag is to use the wiki, not taginfo. I
> suspect many mappers do the same.



I recommend using several sources, my personal priority order is: the wiki,
taginfo, mailing lists.



> Using a tag that is not on the wiki will probably mean it is not rendered.



rendered where? Many if not even most of the tags that are described in the
wiki are actually not rendered on the OSM-Carto style.



> . thus I may have wasted my effort.
>
>

-1, there are lots of other uses for the data besides the one stylesheet
that is the first on the list on OSM's homepage. If the tag is interesting
for a general purpose map, chances are not bad it'll sooner or later get
implemented also in the Carto-OSM stylesheet. If people were only using
tags that get rendered right now in this style sheet, there wouldn't be any
tagging progress at all (meaning also that a lot of features could not be
described at all), and if we would have been working like this 10 years
ago, there wouldn't be any map at all now.


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

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[ael]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:50:36AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote:
> >I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
> >on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
> >bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
> 
> Possible work around?
> 
> Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area?
> 
> Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge

I think that may be a good pragmatic solution for the moment at least.
I will have to make some sort of very rough estimate of an area from my
surveys, photographs and gps traces. These bridges are under tree cover
and are not visible in aerial imagery. 

I would be more comfortable with tagging them as a short ways which do
not introduce spurious accuracy into the data base. I see from the page
that taginfo shows that to be in use despite the prohibition in the
description.

In passing, I am a little bemused that so many people seem to have missed
the hint that I normally regard tagging for the renderer as evil by
using the word "Blatant" in the title of this thread and that it was
sort of a confession and plea for help on how to avoid doing that.

Anyway, it seems to have been productive overall and it sounds as if the
decision on the "standard" rendering might be revisited.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Dave F.]

On 09/03/2015 15:06, ael wrote:


Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.


You're are corrupting *the* data. which is *everybody's* data.

Regards
Dave F.

---
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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[John Willis]

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2015-03-09 6:55 GMT+01:00 johnw :
>> current draft definition:
>> 
>> A new landuse=* value for civil government buildings & complexes where 
>> citizens or services for citizens are managed. This includes legislative and 
>> executive centers, as well as administrative offices for government programs 
>> and mixed-use governmental complexes, such as most "city hall" complexes.
> 
> 
> I believe that city halls might be some sort of exception, as they often have 
> legislation space (municipal assembly) in common with the seat of the mayor 
> (executive), while on higher levels this is rarely the case (e.g. white house 
> and congress). In the example of the city of Berlin (which is somehow an 
> exception as well, as they are a "Land" and not just a city) you also have 
> these two functions in the same building: 
> http://www.berlin.de/orte/sehenswuerdigkeiten/rotes-rathaus/index.en.php?lang=en
> BUT: they are not open to the citizen (save for touristic visits), the 
> services to the citizen are offered by lower level city halls (on lower admin 
> level for "districts" (Bezirk)).

It is a seat of power, and involved in the civic governmental processes. 

I can't waltz into the White House, but it still meets the definition ( I can 
try to jump the fence though =} ) 


>  
>> E
>> 
>>> On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'd see "administration" as part of the executive power, although every 
>>> bigger entity, be it private or public, legislative, executive or judicial, 
>>> will have some administration part.
>> 
>> 
>> If I knew nothing about the structure of government, just the buildings on 
>> the ground, I would notice that the “city hall” for many towns and small 
>> cities often (but not always) have combined complexes for both the assembly 
>> and mayor, and often offices for programs (national insurance, pension, 
>> taxes)
>> 
>> but the courthouse and the punishment system is often never in that same 
>> complex - in my experince. Is that different in places you have seen?
> 
> 
> the Tower of London comes to my mind, it is was a Royal palace as well as a 
> prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_London
> Not the most recent example, but there might be more.
> 
There was an example posted about a civic complex that included courthouses, so 
it looks like in other places, it might be mixed even more. 

All of the differentiation might have to be through amenity or building or 
civic=*


>  
>> 
>> I am referring to administration in the general sense - people administer a 
>> program to do something - issue car licensing or building permits, 
>> collecting money, etc, or are involved in the creation or decision making 
>> process of those programs (leaders, legislative bodies, school boards, water 
>> boards, etc) 
> 
> 
> it's this point, where we do not meet, to me administering stuff to do 
> something is different from legislation (setting up the rules according to 
> which administration works). Someone issuing a car license cannot decide upon 
> the rules, they are set up by a different entity which only sets up rules.

Yea, administration is what you think. 

I should have put an "or" in there.

Is the problem that "admin" is in the title? That I'm proposing tagging 
legislative buildings with "admin"?

I'm looking at it very generically - administration vs public services vs 
public safety. 

Do you have a suggestion for a better civic_?  "Government"seems way too broad. 


> 
> 
>> 
>> but the primary purpose of a standard courthouse has nothing to do with the 
>> creation or management of government programs. They are there for dispute 
>> resolution - between private parties, between the police and a citizen, 
>> between the government ant it’s people - but ultimately it is about dispute 
>> resolution - which could be civil or criminal.
> 
> 
> in other words, to interpret the rules (based on the primary rules 
> (constitution), all the rules, past decisions, etc.) and applicate them to 
> the actual case.

I think there are a lot of judges that will never get to craft laws or 
precedents- though they do have some flexibility I how hard or how soft to hit 
you with the stick, based on you breaking the established rules. 

But the courthouse is a place of judging and punishment allocation. 

It feels different than a city hall, but I think we're going to have to roll 
judicial in and seperately them via tags on the structures. 

> 
>  
>> 
>> if - like most police stations, fire stations, and hospitals -  they sat on 
>> separate landuses, we wouldn’t be having this discussion - as a single 
>> landuse for executive, legislative, and judicial would not only be 
>> appropriate, but practical to implement as well. 
> 
> 
> maybe we don't need a landuse at all, we could just map what is there (e.g. a 
> courthouse, a prison, a city hall, a parking, etc.). If we want to map a

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> The core problem is:
> railway=abandoned
> Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
> What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate
> herbicide,
> up through a highly visible gravel trackbed with bridges and culverts and
> bits of railway artifact scattered about.

Is that the case?/ If so then I suggest that such objects be moved to
a more suitable home where they're less susceptible to deletion, such
as a database of historical objects. If there's nothing visible then
such objects are likely going to be deleted at some point by someone
who is walking/driving by and doesn't see the railroad.

I've had this issue myself in NYC where there's no tracks, because the
objects were mis-tagged as being on layer 0 rather than underground. I
deleted railroad tracks that I could not observe. Apparently the
tunnels still exist, so the issue was resolved, but I can imagine this
becoming a source of conflict.

I know that the railway community in OSM is very passionate. I'm
wondering if there's not a better way to get their mapping needs met.

- Serge

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

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[SomeoneElse]

On 10/03/2015 14:37, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
OSM apparently only cares about railways. 


No, no, no!  OSM cares _passionately_ about semicolons:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/thread.html#21258

Cheers,

Andy

:)


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

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 10/03/2015, ael  wrote:
> In passing, I am a little bemused that so many people seem to have missed
> the hint that I normally regard tagging for the renderer as evil by
> using the word "Blatant" in the title of this thread and that it was
> sort of a confession and plea for help on how to avoid doing that.

I don't think that anybody missed the hint, just confirmed that it was
just as "evil" and unnecessary in this case.

> Anyway, it seems to have been productive overall and it sounds as if the
> decision on the "standard" rendering might be revisited.

I very much doubt that the decision to not render railway=abandoned is
going to be revisited. As for the issue of rendering various cases of
"stand-alone" bridges, it was already on the todo.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-10 13:57 GMT+01:00 John Willis :

> Is the problem that "admin" is in the title? That I'm proposing tagging
> legislative buildings with "admin"?
>


yes, that's a point I don't like. If its admin, it is not legislation.



>
> Do you have a suggestion for a better civic_?  "Government"seems way too
> broad.
>


maybe at that point, a simple "civic" (like you originally proposed) would
be better, even if then the complement will be "military" and we'll get to
cases where those 2 conflict / overlap. And with "civic" there should
likely be judiciary included (no problem for me, still we're just talking
landuse, and there would be more detailed tags for what it actually is,
e.g. a courthouse). "civic" on the other hand, sounds much more inclusive
than what you intend it to be for, e.g. a wastewater treatment plant or a
public library will maybe also be included (again, no problem maybe, just
wanted to point it out).



> I think there are a lot of judges that will never get to craft laws or
> precedents- though they do have some flexibility I how hard or how soft to
> hit you with the stick, based on you breaking the established rules.
>


judges will never craft laws, in their judiciary role, the legislative
power is crafting laws (they might be members of a parliament and craft
laws in that role).




>
> So just roll judicial in and differentiate everything via building/amenity
> tags?
>
>
>

maybe yes, but I'd like to read some other opinions as well, seems there is
not so much interest. I could imagine another type of landuse, "cultural",
which would include museums, libraries, theatres, movie theatres, music
venues, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 10/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo 
> wrote:
> I've also seen the opposite mapping issue, where an abandoned railway was
> deleted from the map,
> when in fact large chunks still exist.

If an osm way represents a railway that is 50% gone, is it more
correct to keep the way or to delete it (ignoring the actually-correct
but time-consuming task of deleting only the parts that are gone) ?
Where would you put the "% gone before complete deletion is justified"
threshold ? Throw in the problem that "gone" is a subjective term
(plus different answers on the ground and using imagery), and you get
a nice recipe for disagreements.

I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here, to show how quickly
opinions can diverge. Please always discuss your intent with the other
contributor.

Thankfully the distinction between abandoned and disused is clear.
It's between abandoned and razed/not_maped that things get tricky.

>> Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then
>> it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway
>> tag, you should remove the railway=abandoned tag.
>
> I don't see that railway=razed damages highway=cycleway.

s/razed/abandoned/. No damage done, it's just no longer usefull.

> The present day cycleway may well have photos of that same old railway on
> interpretive signs.  The current cycleway may in fact be called a "rail to
> trail".  Some people seek those out explicitly, because they're associated
> with a flat grade and gentle curves.
>
> In cases like this the history is* a part of a present day object.*

Railway=* is a poor heuristic for flat grades and gentle curves : lots
of false negatives. If the cycleway is advertised as a 'rail to
trail', it'll transpire in other tags, name=* and maybe tourist=*.

I'm not saying that the attributes you describe are not interesting,
but that describing them by tagging the history of the object is the
wrong way around. Tag the current state, not how it came to be. Just
like we tag smoothness=* rather than the name of the road surfacing
company (yeah, silly example).


> Railroads are special in part because they're large and long, far bigger
> than any abandoned shop or razed cottage.
> They leave a major footprint on the future world, one that's often apparent
> well after the last bit of gravel is dug out and planted over.
>
> It's more like tagging "shoe shop in a landmark beaux arts former post
> office" than "turn left where the fruit stand used to be".

Yes, railways do leave long-lasting signs. Then again, even cow paths
have a tendency to turn into avenues (with a tell-tale layout
appreciated by historians and tourists) given enough time, so it's not
particularly unique or impressive. Yet when it comes to tagging the
past, OSM apparently only cares about railways.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sanitary Dump Station

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Trying to build consensus after at least three failed efforts in past years,
I submit for voting:

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

Please read through the discussion and old proposals if you have questions:
this has been well discussed over the years.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

[Bryce Nesbitt]

> 2015-03-08 23:08 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>> The way I search for a relevant tag is to use the wiki, not taginfo. I
>> suspect many mappers do the same.
>
> Using a tag that is not on the wiki will probably mean it is not rendered.
>>
>
Many mappers don't use the wiki at all.
The wiki has a very low correlation to the rendering.
Rendering is not the only goal of OSM data collection.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

[Sam Dyck]

In Canada, privately licensed frequencies, not CB are used that have to be
programmed into the scanner. There may or may not be repeaters, but since
you only need to communicate with the traffic nearby it doesn't matter
(there's no point in know that there is a truck moving 20km up the road.
The system does not excuse bad driving, nor does it replace a satellite
phone.

What I assume Warin is talking about is extremely remote tracks with
extremely low traffic, but the roads I'm referring to are logging or winter
roads, which are remote, narrow and have heavy equipment moving down them
at times (but at other times are empty) In my part of Canada such roads are
open to the public and often accommodate different groups of people with
different vehicles (everything from tractor trailers to long distance
runners)

Here is an example of a sign in BC that mercifully gives the frequency:
http://valchev.net/peter/trips/bugaboos2013/.slide_20130725-130610.jpg
This one, put up by the same agency has no indication of what frequency and
just assumes you know what you're doing:
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/tamlog/20071009MatthewCreek/PA097831.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

[Jan van Bekkum]

Hi Andreas,

Thanks for your reaction.

Yes it was, but the definition changed in the mean time. It was originally
proposed as "Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values
for key parking".

An extensive discussion took place about shop or amenity. My conclusion is
that shop is the better alternative. It remains a bit fuzzy, just like the
real world. I have tried to explain that in the updated proposal.

Regards,

Jan van Bekkum

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:15 PM Andreas Goss  wrote:

> Was this RFC ever submitted to the mailinglist?
>
> Shop sounds a bit strange to me as you say, maybe it's also just that
> non-native speakers see it a bit different. But as you say we kinda lack
> a key for services.
>
> On 3/9/15 08:50 , Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> > As the comments period is over and no comments have been received lately
> > I would like to move the proposal shop=storage
> >  parking%3Dcar_storage>
> > to stage voting.
> >
> > I have done some final editing to cover the received feedback.
> >
> > Instructions for voting:
> >
> >   * Log in to the wiki - top right corner of the page -scroll up
> >   * Then scroll down to voting and click on 'edit'
> >   * Copy and paste for * yes -   {{vote|yes}} , for
> >   no  -   {{vote|no}} 
> >
> > Thanks for your support!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
>
> --
> __
> openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Voting - shop=storage

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Jan,

I think it would help if you renamed the page title in the wiki, and edited
the text of the proposal for clarity.
Then resubmit to vote.

---
If you think of "shop=" as "business=", a storage business makes perfect
sense.  Goods stored include
household goods, vehicles, or bulk goods.  The proposal makes sense, just
the wiki needs some work.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

[Jan van Bekkum]

Hi Bryce,

How can I rename the wiki? Do I need to create a new one and copy/paste the
contents?

Regards,

Jan

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> Jan,
>
> I think it would help if you renamed the page title in the wiki, and
> edited the text of the proposal for clarity.
> Then resubmit to vote.
>
> ---
> If you think of "shop=" as "business=", a storage business makes perfect
> sense.  Goods stored include
> household goods, vehicles, or bulk goods.  The proposal makes sense, just
> the wiki needs some work.
> ___
> 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] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[Bryce Nesbitt]

I'm seeking comments on adding "palm" to the leaf types
at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type

A rendering engine can equate palm and "broadleaved".  Mappers are mapping
palms
very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

[althio]

On 10 March 2015 at 21:40, Jan van Bekkum  wrote:
> Hi Bryce,
>
> How can I rename the wiki? Do I need to create a new one and copy/paste the
> contents?

Look on the line:
Read | Edit | View history | [Star, Watch] | Dropdown arrow

Click the Dropdown arrow and Move.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

[Bryce Nesbitt]

There a "move page" link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming pages.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 11:38 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>..

> > Using a tag that is not on the wiki will probably mean it is not 
> > rendered.

> rendered where? Many if not even most of the tags that are described
> in the wiki are actually not rendered on the OSM-Carto style.
> 
While true Martin, its a simplification. A tag mentioned in the wiki or
other "authoritative source" is seen by many people and therefore more
likely to be used in many entries than some tag that I personally think
is great but one one else realises I'm using.

And anyone making a render decision is likely to consider the number of
times a tag is used (among other things). So, the wiki and similar
focuses efforts on a smaller set of tags. 

Have a think about the Tower of Babel.

David
>  
> . thus I may have wasted my effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -1, there are lots of other uses for the data besides the one
> stylesheet that is the first on the list on OSM's homepage. If the tag
> is interesting for a general purpose map, chances are not bad it'll
> sooner or later get implemented also in the Carto-OSM stylesheet. If
> people were only using tags that get rendered right now in this style
> sheet, there wouldn't be any tagging progress at all (meaning also
> that a lot of features could not be described at all), and if we would
> have been working like this 10 years ago, there wouldn't be any map at
> all now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 - RFC - Reception Desk

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 09:35 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

>The wiki has a very low correlation to the rendering.

Does it ?  Are you suggesting that there is substantial usage of tags
that don't appear on the wiki ?  If so, I'd suggest we need to fix the
wiki.

> Rendering is not the only goal of OSM data collection.

True, but its still the main goal IMHO. Would you suggest otherwise ?

David




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

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[Lukas Sommer]

“palm” is described explicitly as an example at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leaf_type%3Dbroadleaved

So it this seems to me that this is just a special case of broadleaved.

I have doubts in adding a new value which is just a special case of an
existing value – in the same key. We loose the hirarchy.  Probably
this won’t reduce confusion, but rather increase confusion.

2015-03-10 20:41 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt :
> I'm seeking comments on adding "palm" to the leaf types
> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type
>
> A rendering engine can equate palm and "broadleaved".  Mappers are mapping
> palms
> very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion.
>


-- 
Lukas Sommer

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

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Lukas Sommer  wrote:

> So it this seems to me that this is just a special case of broadleaved.
>

The difficulty is that palms are widely mapped now, and changing type=palm
to leaf_type=broadleaved
feels like removing information.  Yet that's what the wiki recommends doing.

However, leaf_type=palm would loose no data, and still be recognizable as a
broadleaved leaf type.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[Dave Swarthout]

+1
leaf_type=palm would loose no data, and still be recognizable as a
broadleaved leaf type.

It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I
usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type.

My 2 cents

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Lukas Sommer  wrote:
>
>> So it this seems to me that this is just a special case of broadleaved.
>>
>
> The difficulty is that palms are widely mapped now, and changing type=palm
> to leaf_type=broadleaved
> feels like removing information.  Yet that's what the wiki recommends
> doing.
>
> However, leaf_type=palm would loose no data, and still be recognizable as
> a broadleaved leaf type.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[Dave Swarthout]

I've been following this discussion, sort of, and think much of the
confusion could be eliminated if you just fall back to landuse=civic, as
suggested. That way we needn't worry about what sort of government branch,
be it executive or judicial, the occupants belong to. Civic is fairly
general, yes, but certain areas or buildings could have other more specific
tagging.

I'm thinking about the huge variety of government buildings and complexes I
see here in Thailand. There are irrigation offices, municipality offices,
immigration and customs offices, often situated on a campus with ancillary
buildings on the same property surrounded by a wall or fence. To what part
of the government do these belong? I haven't a clue but they are certainly
not retail, or commercial, or industrial. They are all civic in the sense
that they are operated for the good of the people as a whole.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2015-03-10 13:57 GMT+01:00 John Willis :
>
>> Is the problem that "admin" is in the title? That I'm proposing tagging
>> legislative buildings with "admin"?
>>
>
>
> yes, that's a point I don't like. If its admin, it is not legislation.
>
>
>
>>
>> Do you have a suggestion for a better civic_?  "Government"seems way too
>> broad.
>>
>
>
> maybe at that point, a simple "civic" (like you originally proposed) would
> be better, even if then the complement will be "military" and we'll get to
> cases where those 2 conflict / overlap. And with "civic" there should
> likely be judiciary included (no problem for me, still we're just talking
> landuse, and there would be more detailed tags for what it actually is,
> e.g. a courthouse). "civic" on the other hand, sounds much more inclusive
> than what you intend it to be for, e.g. a wastewater treatment plant or a
> public library will maybe also be included (again, no problem maybe, just
> wanted to point it out).
>
>
>
>> I think there are a lot of judges that will never get to craft laws or
>> precedents- though they do have some flexibility I how hard or how soft to
>> hit you with the stick, based on you breaking the established rules.
>>
>
>
> judges will never craft laws, in their judiciary role, the legislative
> power is crafting laws (they might be members of a parliament and craft
> laws in that role).
>
>
>
>
>>
>> So just roll judicial in and differentiate everything via
>> building/amenity tags?
>>
>>
>>
>
> maybe yes, but I'd like to read some other opinions as well, seems there
> is not so much interest. I could imagine another type of landuse,
> "cultural", which would include museums, libraries, theatres, movie
> theatres, music venues, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[Mike Thompson]

>
> It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I
> usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type.
>
+1
Palms are their own group of trees distinct from broad-leaved trees or
conifers and it makes sense to tag with a different value.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[johnw]

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2015-03-10 13:57 GMT+01:00 John Willis mailto:jo...@mac.com>>:
> Is the problem that "admin" is in the title? That I'm proposing tagging 
> legislative buildings with "admin"?
> 
> 
> yes, that's a point I don't like. If its admin, it is not legislation.


That’s a point I just realized. 

> 
>  
> 
> Do you have a suggestion for a better civic_?  "Government"seems way too 
> broad. 
> 
> 
> maybe at that point, a simple "civic" (like you originally proposed) would be 
> better, even if then the complement will be "military" and we'll get to cases 
> where those 2 conflict / overlap. And with "civic" there should likely be 
> judiciary included (no problem for me, still we're just talking landuse, and 
> there would be more detailed tags for what it actually is, e.g. a 
> courthouse). "civic" on the other hand, sounds much more inclusive than what 
> you intend it to be for, e.g. a wastewater treatment plant or a public 
> library will maybe also be included (again, no problem maybe, just wanted to 
> point it out).

That separation of wastewater plants, road gritting stations, sewer repair 
depots, etc (civic_maintenance?)  was why I chose civic_*admin* - maybe there 
is another term that can substitute for admin, such as civic_government, or 
something  that implies that maintenance facilities and libraries are excluded. 

then  Civic_services + Civic_safety  would round it out. 

>  
> 
> 
> I think there are a lot of judges that will never get to craft laws or 
> precedents- though they do have some flexibility I how hard or how soft to 
> hit you with the stick, based on you breaking the established rules. 
> 
> 
> judges will never craft laws, in their judiciary role, the legislative power 
> is crafting laws (they might be members of a parliament and craft laws in 
> that role).


"setting precedent” is a rare but effective way for judges to affect the law, 
as when they rule guilt or innocence in a case, it is used as an example to 
show what circumstances trigger the application of the law - it’s what all the 
lawyers study in law school (case studies) as I understand It. But I assume it 
is quite rare for a local judge (which I assume there are way more than 
regional or national judges) in a city courhouse slapping fines for DUIs and 
speeding tickets to ever make such a ruling. 

> 
> So just roll judicial in and differentiate everything via building/amenity 
> tags? 
> 
> 
> maybe yes, but I'd like to read some other opinions as well, seems there is 
> not so much interest. I could imagine another type of landuse, "cultural", 
> which would include museums, libraries, theatres, movie theatres, music 
> venues, etc.
> 

Cultural or culture_centre is a wonderful suggestion - in Japan, a lot of the 
performance halls that we would call “civic centres” they call “Cultural Halls” 
(AFAIK) from the Japanese translation - as it is not a place for sports or a 
pop music concert - Just more “traditional" performances. But I think that it 
would be good for any kind of purposefully built event center, or place where 
cultural works are displayed or performed (museum, concert hall, organ 
pavilion, art gallery, etc). 

This might overlap with community centers or recreation centers ("rec-centers") 
- as often they are the venue for small cultural events, especially of the 
local variety.  There are 3 “kominkans” nearby my work, and one is almost 
purely a theatrical event center (there are no meeting rooms).

so would this replace civic_service for any community center? would a post 
office then fall under civic_*? 

Thanks again for the good comments & suggestions. This is a tough nut to crack. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[johnw]

There are places where there are an amazing mount of Palm trees, and confusing 
them with a broadleaf tree is not great. But is this the main way the species 
(or class or whatever) of tree is defined? it thought there was some species 
tag for this as well - or is it too difficult when mapping to know the type of 
tree beyond it’s leaf?

It would be nice if trees marked get a color or shape at extremely high zoom 
(z19?).  Many park maps in Japan map the trees (yes, individual trees) as to 
what color stereotype it’s blooms are. (soft pink dots for cherry, magenta for 
plum, etc), as people often go looking in the parks for the blooms in spring. 

Javbw

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:39 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I 
> usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type. 
> +1
> Palms are their own group of trees distinct from broad-leaved trees or 
> conifers and it makes sense to tag with a different value.
> 
> Mike
> ___
> 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] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[johnw]

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Matthijs Melissen  
> wrote:
> 
> On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse  wrote:
>> To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
>> and it was summarily closed:
>> 
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641
> 
> That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a
> duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier
> bug report.
> 
> We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken
> a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges.
> 
> — Matthijs
> 

When I complained about he strong black of power line renderings, and the 
response was that that the lines offer orientation guidance in rural areas, so 
their inclusion and high prominence was justified.

Actual physical bridges - which may offer the only way across a ravine, or a 
landmark to where you are on a river sounds like a similar justification - so 
rendering abandoned, yet physically existing bridges seems like exactly the 
kind of thing that would be included - especially since their inclusion would 
offer no clutter or distraction at levels where other items would cause quite a 
lot of visual clutter for similar orinentation benefit.

There is an amazing amount of abandoned and bypassed bridges here  in Japan - 
way more than in America, especially in rural areas. 

Many people see the usefulness of the -carto default rendering as the end goal 
of their work, right or wrong - there’s very few other ways a simple tagger can 
interact with their input to OSM, so balancing the data shown and the clarity 
of the map is very difficult - but not rendering actually existing bridges 
seems wholly incorrect.  

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

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:11 PM, sly (sylvain letuffe) 
wrote:

> Le mardi 10 mars 2015 22:14:45, Bryce Nesbitt a écrit :
> It isn't really clear to me what you mean by that, but I don't like mixing
> different changeset types of mechanical edits. It makes it harder to
> understand what was the intended mechanical edition's goal.
>

Yes, the mixing does muddy the waters.  On the other side:

The mechanical edit is touching objects that had pre-existing pending
cleanup.  These are not edits that require local knowledge.  Uploading
these in one changeset is less version churn.

In some cases it's typos (
http://blog.jochentopf.com/2015-03-05-new-taginfo-features-and-a-challenge.html
) in some cases it's modernizing tagging such as moving away from the
"type" key used by relations (for example moving type=deciduous to
leaf_cycle=deciduous).  Since this is really a "semi mechanical edit",
there's careful human review.
--

To be clear:
Initial post to the mailing list involved:  *removing useless fixmes*
Based on list feedback, the discussion shifted and was focused on one task: *
remove denotation=cluster along with the fixme* (the fixme was in fact
recognized as flag for the bad data).
On the table now: * performing remaining needed cleanup on objects that
will be edited anyway*

The problems with denotation=cluster have been widely discussed (years ago
and recently).  It means "non-special tree".
The original bot author does not agree with the mechanical edit, and wishes
natural=tree to be reserved for special trees.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:01 PM, johnw  wrote:
>
> There are places where there are an amazing mount of Palm trees, and 
> confusing them with a broadleaf tree is not great. But is this the main way 
> the species (or class or whatever) of tree is defined? I thought there was 
> some species tag for this as well - or is it too difficult when mapping to 
> know the type of tree beyond it’s leaf?

There are species and genus tags, but many mappers won't be able to
fill that those.   Palm on the other hand is easy,
and makes a great map symbol also.

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

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

[Russell Deffner]

Hi, I hope this helps (and that I’m remembering correctly my education from 
forestry school in the states),

In taxonomy of trees there are two kinds of families - gymnosperms and 
angiosperms, commonly called deciduous and coniferous but actually 
scientifically separated by their reproductive difference not what their leaves 
look like, do, etc.

More commonly you here layman terms depending on context:
-‘Leaf Type’ (the structure of the leaves): needle, broad and/or palm
-‘Leaf Retention’ (if they fall off or not): evergreen, autumn/broad, and/or 
Palm
- ‘Wood Type’ (for wood product industry): soft, hard, exotic/ornamental 

Maybe we need a key/value for each 'category'; and genus and species is 
probably best for 'micro-mapping' individual trees or maybe 
scientific_name=[genus_species] and/or common_name=* example pinus_ponderosa / 
ponderosa_pine

Wish I had more time to work on a proposal/update/upgrade to the wood/natural 
tagging, but can help answer questions (was going to chime in about the 
diameter/crown discussion – there’s a whole slew of measurements and how to 
make them regarding individual trees versus forest plots/stands, etc.)

Cheers,
=Russ

Russell Deffner


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

[Jan van Bekkum]

To avoid confusion the wiki page has been renamed to reflect the change of
the proposal itself that was made before the proposal was submitted for
voting. It now can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dstorage#Tagging.

Furthermore I elaborated the reasoning for the proposal as it is a bit more
in the paragraph "Tagging".

Regards,

Jan van Bekkum

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> There a "move page" link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming
> pages.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging