Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
W dniu 03.08.2015 11:59, Tom Pfeifer napisał(a): christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote on 2015-08-03 09:20: landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the cultural landscape (landuse). But the proposal never got the support it needed to get established. 17000 x landcover in the database, by 748 different users, of which 9300 are trees, is definitely support. Probably the key should be refined and documented more precisely. That's exactly why I think we should at least make specific proposition page for trees (9 299 uses), so it can evolve and be more precise. The same for the grass (4 053). These are not big numbers comparing to other landuse/natural tags of course, but it's clear they are established in terms of usage and still significant numbers (especially considering the fact they are only mentioned in one place on the Wiki). I wonder what the landcover=garden (1 389) could really mean and what other tagging could be used instead, but even trees+grass alone are perfect good reason to use this namespace. Important effect of this will be better quality of currently used tags, because now forest/wood are tainted by too much of blind guessing - we don't even know to what extent! Natural=wood tag is probably hit harder by this, because it's commonly used in two different meanings and it lost a lot of its credibility, but natural=forest is also affected. There are however some unresolved questions how many users really use trees tag now (it was the discussion on default map style): https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128897237 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-08-03 10:00: it is an orthogonal tagging scheme to map physical landcover as opposed to landuse and abstract geographic entities like natural ... Which makes a lot of sense. I often have cases that a commercial or residential plot of land (which boundaries are now mappable from open land registry data) which is covered in parts by certain vegetation or surface (which is visible in aerial photography). Being able to combine these different sources will bring out the strengths of OSM. The tag also helps to solve the issue that nature claims back land that is not used by humans anymore, with arbitrary vegetation, and no land_use_ tag fits. Big +1 for all above. Being orthogonal here is the key for micromapping places like parks for example. -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: Re: landcover=trees definition
Anybody other have problems with posts to the list getting lost? I resend this one and hope this time it will get there: Wiadomość oryginalna Temat: Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition Data: 10.08.2015 11:35 Od: Daniel Koć Do: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" W dniu 03.08.2015 11:59, Tom Pfeifer napisał(a): christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote on 2015-08-03 09:20: landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the cultural landscape (landuse). But the proposal never got the support it needed to get established. 17000 x landcover in the database, by 748 different users, of which 9300 are trees, is definitely support. Probably the key should be refined and documented more precisely. That's exactly why I think we should at least make specific proposition page for trees (9 299 uses), so it can evolve and be more precise. The same for the grass (4 053). These are not big numbers comparing to other landuse/natural tags of course, but it's clear they are established in terms of usage and still significant numbers (especially considering the fact they are only mentioned in one place on the Wiki). I wonder what the landcover=garden (1 389) could really mean and what other tagging could be used instead, but even trees+grass alone are perfect good reason to use this namespace. Important effect of this will be better quality of currently used tags, because now forest/wood are tainted by too much of blind guessing - we don't even know to what extent! Natural=wood tag is probably hit harder by this, because it's commonly used in two different meanings and it lost a lot of its credibility, but natural=forest is also affected. There are however some unresolved questions how many users really use trees tag now (it was the discussion on default map style): https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128897237 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-08-03 10:00: it is an orthogonal tagging scheme to map physical landcover as opposed to landuse and abstract geographic entities like natural ... Which makes a lot of sense. I often have cases that a commercial or residential plot of land (which boundaries are now mappable from open land registry data) which is covered in parts by certain vegetation or surface (which is visible in aerial photography). Being able to combine these different sources will bring out the strengths of OSM. The tag also helps to solve the issue that nature claims back land that is not used by humans anymore, with arbitrary vegetation, and no land_use_ tag fits. Big +1 for all above. Being orthogonal here is the key for micromapping places like parks for example. -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
On 03/08/2015 09:20, christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote: landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the cultural landscape (landuse). But the proposal never got the support it needed to get established. A pity - I just happen to have a problem that this proposal would solve... Take a look at this charming corner of Normandy: http://binged.it/1ht3p7v On the left, a dense urban location that is clearly landuse=residential. On the right, what is most definitely landuse=meadow. So what about the center ? We see residential buildings among a predominantly grass cover. In other areas, I have seen this mapped as landuse=meadow - but it is wrong because it is actually used as a residential areal. To me, it seems that mapping this area as a combination of landuse=residential and landcover=grass would be most fitting. I have thought about using the landuse=residential + natural=grass combination instead, but those lawns do not strike me as natural. What do you all think ? Is this a good illustration of the need for landcover=* ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re: landcover=trees definition
I received your original message at 11:35. (UTC+02:00) On Monday 10 August 2015 11:56:27 Daniel Koć wrote: > Anybody other have problems with posts to the list getting lost? I > resend this one and hope this time it will get there: -- Ruben Maes The field "from" of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the back of an envelope. Use OpenPGP to verify that this message is sent by me. You can find my public key in the public directories, like pool.sks-keyservers.net. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
W dniu 10.08.2015 12:29, Jean-Marc Liotier napisał(a): To me, it seems that mapping this area as a combination of landuse=residential and landcover=grass would be most fitting. I have thought about using the landuse=residential + natural=grass combination instead, but those lawns do not strike me as natural. Whenever you can find the function of the area it's better to choose landuse, but I have hard time trying to guess what is the "use" of grass in general. You're right - natural=* namespace is rather unsuitable here and landcover is just safer. You may even consider landcover=lawn scheme, but Taginfo tells that it's currently unused and instead landcover=Lawn (with a big "L") is used 626 times, strangely enough. -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > landuse=residential + natural=grass combination > instead, but those lawns do not strike me as natural. The grass is natural (plants), unless it's some sort of man made plastic artificial grass imitation). The key natural never was only about geographical features, nor was it only about the "untouched wild" natural features; the tagging recommendation change that was allowed to take place by mistake, i.e. to use natural vs. landuse for "primeval" woods vs. in any way managed woods should not be allowed to creep into the meaning of other things tagged with the natural key. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Some messages delivery problems [was: Fwd: Re: landcover=trees definition]
W dniu 10.08.2015 13:38, Ruben Maes napisał(a): I received your original message at 11:35. (UTC+02:00) I didn't and I have also seen no trace of it in the archive for at least 20 minutes. In general I get them almost instantly and the archive shows them fast too, but once or two my messages to this list (or maybe Talk?) got lost completely. -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re: landcover=trees definition
sent from a phone > Am 10.08.2015 um 11:56 schrieb Daniel Koć : > > landcover=garden to me this is clearly a landuse, in osm typically mapped as leisure=garden This garden value should be discouraged for landcover cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Some messages delivery problems [was: Fwd: Re: landcover=trees definition]
On Monday 10 August 2015 13:51:16 Daniel Koć wrote: > I didn't and I have also seen no trace of it in the archive for at least > 20 minutes. Now that I think of it, some messages of mine on other lists have also not been included in the archives but people responded to them. > In general I get them almost instantly and the archive shows them fast > too, but once or two my messages to this list (or maybe Talk?) got lost > completely. Maybe you can try and enable post acknowledgements at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/options/tagging/. -- Ruben Maes The field "from" of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the back of an envelope. Use OpenPGP to verify that this message is sent by me. You can find my public key in the public directories, like pool.sks-keyservers.net. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
For that matter, there can be major regional variations within the same
country, not to mention variations for historical reasons within the same
city. In Nashville, Tennessee, USA, where I live, the majority of the city
was developed post-World-War-II, meaning that residential streets tend to
be built wide enough to allow parking on both sides, plus two lanes of
traffic. However, there are a few named streets in what had once been rural
hamlets, later swallowed up by urban expansion, that are only a single
lane, with no room for two vehicles to pass each other, let alone park.
Assuming that a given tag such as highway=residential or highway=path
implies certain physical characteristics is a risky proposition.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On August 6, 2015 10:03:16 AM John Willis wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
If all mappers just map cycleways and don't care for access restrictions
for pedestrians we end up with the same tags meaning different things.
That is very true - which means that assumptions based on country need to
be made by the routers, and presets that change based on mapping location
need to be made. ("German Cycleway" and cycleway come up when searching for
cycleway presets when mapping in Germany).
Just as we have a variance as to what is a "primary road" in a third world
vs first world nation, we can still have a consistent regional meaning to
what is a "primary" road. The same could be said of cycleway or footway.
What i consider a residential road in Japan might be thought of as an Alley
in the US because of differences in expectations in how wide, easy to
navigate, turn radius, pole placement, barriers and hazards, etc there are
- beyond simple residential access.
but we don't just make everything highway=yes and define the differences
through subtags.
There are even more specialized tags in residential - a living street,
which is a regional tag. Why not have highway=cycle-ped_path (and a couple
others?) to fill in common situations? They could be rendered purple
(red+blue). A regional mapper could choose the best one for their area.
But i still feel that going by assumed purpose (a sidewalk is a footway, a
bike path along a river is a cycleway) regardless of what is
legal/permissive to use the way for (add foot=yes or whatever as necessary)
would better reflect the "duck" qualities of the way being tagged.
The easiest short term solution is to fill in some kind of "trail"
substitute for true "trails" that are maintained, like rural hiking courses
or narrow, rough paths through nature, which would take a lot of the "path
through the wilderness" burden off of =path, and set up for a change in
rendering/meaning for path in the future - if you don't need to tag =path
on anything, then eventually (a long time from now) it can be depreciated.
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
