Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:38:05 -0500
"Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-03-19 at 11:41 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations.
> 
> The only authoritative source for the houses currently offered on
> Airbnb is Airbnb itself. There is a reason Airbnb does not show exact
> address or even exact locations on the map.
> 
> This data absolutely, positively, does not belong in OpenStreetMap, as
> there would be no end of ethical, moral, and possibly legal problems
> from doing so. If you've added any of these already, I'd recommend
> quickly reverting the changes.
> 

At least some AirBnB locations are de facto hotels (with all legal &
practical complications). I see absolutely no problem with mapping such
locations (I am not sure how as I never encountered such locations - I
am unsure how exactly "we are hotel but for legal purposes we are
pretending to not be" is done).

Also, I see absolutely no problem with marking privately operated guest
houses or houses where some rooms are reserved for rent for tourists.
For example in Poland it is typical for people in tourism areas
(mountains, seashore, etc) to rent rooms during holidays.

In many cases houses are explicitly constructed to make renting some
rooms easy and in many areas all/nearly all/most of holiday lodgings
is of this type.

I tagged locations like this and I see no ethical, moral and legal
problems with that practise.

The Airbnb case does seem to be similar, though it is possible that data
may get outdated quicker.

Though it may be useful to establish subtag for guest house for
cases where one building contains both permanent residence and rooms for
short-term renting.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-03-17 08:49, Simon Poole wrote:

> - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one
> building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual
> component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its
> own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has
> been demolished).

It can conjour up some amusing images, I agree, and maybe not entirely
perfect. But what I wrote is based on the fact that this was one of the
heuristic criteria for the Dutch government in an exercise over the past
few years of giving every "building" an identifier, with an N:M relation
with ownership and habitation (i.e. one building can contain (parts of)
multiple occupancy units, and one occupancy unit can be spread over
multiple buildings or parts thereof. Other criteria included the ability
for a human to stand. 

A typical summary of the definition of a "building" for these purposes
is "de kleinste bij de totstandkoming functioneel en
bouwkundig-constructief zelfstandige eenheid die direct en duurzaam met
de aarde is verbonden [1] en betreedbaar en afsluitbaar is" is a basic
description, which translates to "the smallest unit which is
constructionally independent, built directly upon the ground, enterable
(by a human) and lockable" 

Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially
extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does
that become a new Building? 

Not that I am suggesting we have such strict rules... but some well
thought-out guidelines would help to assure a bit of consistency. 

--colin 

Links:
--
[1] https://www.amsterdam.nl/stelselpedia/woordenboek/#Duurzaamverbonden
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 19.03.2016 um 07:07 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
> 
> The fact that they are advertised, on AirBnB and locally on signs, seems to 
> imply that the data is available for public consumption. But maybe including 
> them in OSM is, as you suggest,illegal


I also assume that copying systematically urls from airbnb is likely forbidden 
(EU db directive and ToS), but if there's a business you know of (e.g. through 
local signs), you can add them (I wouldn't put the ref to airbnb), also with 
email, phone etc.

The same holds true for similar sites like booking.com etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:38:05 -0500
"Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-03-19 at 11:41 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations.
> 
> The only authoritative source for the houses currently offered on
> Airbnb is Airbnb itself.

That is untrue. For cases where signs are placed by owner it is fairly
easy to find such locations during survey.

For cases where owner put no signs of any kind I would respect
this decision and do no map such location (it applies to regions where
putting signs is typically done by owners of guest houses or similar
objects).

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[johnw]

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:
> 
> prominence and topographic isolation,

Neither are good measures of mountains, besides for record holders. 

- There are bigger volcanoes than Mt Fuji  in Russia, just north of Japan, that 
no one knows the names of (internationally). They are equally isolated. 
Klyuchevskaya Sopka is over 4200m (fuji is 3776), and equally as isolated as Mt 
Fuji - and no one outside of that region knows it’s name. 

Who can name one of the other 12 peaks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 
California that are over 14,000 feet tall, within 500 feet as tall as Mt 
Whitney (14,505)? I can name Mt Langley, but that is about it. 

- Mt fuji is climbed by 100X (?) more people during climbing season than 
Everest. So should Mt Everest be rendered later? What About Denali? Few people 
climb it. 


But these are all record holding - international, national, or regional 
mountains - this idea of mapping mountains via prominence or topography 
completely and utterly fails at a provincial level. 

Regionally and provincially important mountains are often more important than 
their taller neighbors due to their proximity to towns, or odd shapes - not any 
height or isolation. Their proximity to the towns ingrains them into the 
culture, through naming, religious significance, or tourism reasons.

Right next to Mt Fuji is a collapsed volcano and caldera called Mt Hakone 
https://goo.gl/maps/hNSC9NwsHg42  . it is 
very short now, and not nearly as prominent as nearby Mt Ashitaka or (of 
course) Mt Fuji. But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and 
prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many international 
tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous vents and enjoy the hot 
spring resorts inside the caldera. 

In my region, Mt Akagi is famous. https://goo.gl/maps/8A5STm9VwAs 
 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Akagi 
 . WWII buffs may recognize the 
name, as the Carrier Akagi (lost at the battle of midway) is named after it. It 
is the namesake of hundreds, perhaps thousands of places and things (I drink 
"Mt. Akaki” Sake).  However, Mt Kessamaru is higher than Mt Akagi nearby. Most 
people don’t know of it, nor care. This mountain, and two other visible, but 
low mountains are called the “three mountains” of my provience - though they 
are surrounded by taller ones. And the little points around the caldera (some 
of which Google renders alongside Mt Akagi’s label) are only locally known, and 
shouldn’t be rendered except at high zoom. 

OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of things. 
Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling 
at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous. 

So we render them all equally - which is equally as ridiculous. 

So we will never have a better map / map data than the random GIS data that 
everyone already has and already uses to make inferior, confusing maps - which 
is what I’m trying to fix in OSM.  

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed Mar 16 15:03:25 2016 GMT, Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe 
> wrote:
> 
> > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
> > building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
> >
> My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.
> 
In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
what roofline belongs to which building. 

I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you can 
always improve it after more surveys.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Clifford Snow]

I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the
building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses.
Because the buildings were different heights it is difficult to determine
where one building ended and another started. For example the CenturyLink
building (which is a block long) at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.97785/-93.26680 is multiple
buildings, yet shown as one.

Where possible buildings should be shown as individual buildings, but
sometimes we just don't have the information available.

Off topic, but the antennas on top of the CenturyLink building were mostly
for looks. Only a few were actually used. I wonder if they even use any of
them any more. I'll have to see if I can find anyone that still works there.

Clifford

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 16.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Blake Girardot :
> >
> > Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined
> as building just because that is a lot easier and then leave the detailed
> mapping to someone else.
>
>
> I sometimes encountered whole blocks mapped as a single building. Often I
> moved these to landuse and removed the building tag.
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Blake Girardot]

Hi Joost,

The main wiki entry on building tagging says this about building tagging:

"In addition outlines can either be simplified shapes or very detailed 
outlines which conform accurately to the shape of the building. It is 
not uncommon for buildings to initially be described as simple group 
outlines later be improved with more detailed outlines and to be split 
into individual properties."


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings

I think that fits in well with the idea that mapping and tagging can be 
refined as part of the overall mapping process.


Although, I always encourage people to outline the individual buildings 
if you can tell they are individual building units, even with a shared wall.


The downside of not strictly encouraging that style of mapping is large 
blocks of buildings being outlined with one building=yes tag which is 
much less useful for most use cases of building footprints.


So for me only in the most extreme circumstances will I use a single 
building outline for what I suspect might be multiple individual 
buildings, but I do it once in a while if there is just no way to 
reliably distinguish what might be individual buildings.


Cheers
blake



On 3/16/2016 3:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote:

Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not
the hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define
organically grown blocks.

There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is
undocumented and maybe overly precise.

--
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress



___
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] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 19.03.2016 um 08:41 schrieb johnw :


first, those internationally unknown volcanoes in Russia won't compete with 
your Japanese mountains, because they're too far away, what I suggested was 
aimed at deciding locally what to show/label, not necessarily compare 
significance on a global level.


> 
> Right next to Mt Fuji is a collapsed volcano and caldera called Mt Hakone 
> https://goo.gl/maps/hNSC9NwsHg42 . it is very short now, and not nearly as 
> prominent as nearby Mt Ashitaka or (of course) Mt Fuji.


the fact that it is a volcano might already come into play when deciding what 
to render/label


> But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and prominence would 
> say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many international tourists) come 
> there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous vents and enjoy the hot spring resorts 
> inside the caldera. 


I'd say: tourism=attraction for this volcano (admittedly another way of saying 
important=yes), the presence of the resorts also indicates importance. Is this 
checkable automatically? Not sure (of course you can check for this if you know 
what you're looking for, but a different place might have completely different 
reasons to be "important")

cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Colin Smale]

We will need a definition of "building". Some may consider a terrace of
houses to be a single building. 

One definition I have worked with involves assessing the ability of the
"building" to remain standing and usable if the "buildings" on either
side were removed. If a house in the middle of a terrace was destroyed
or demolished, would the adjoining houses still be structurally sound?
If so, they are separate buildings. If not, the terrace is one building.

This also has meaning in the vertical dimension. In a block of flats,
the units cannot be called buildings because they are structurally
dependent on each other. 

Having said all that, using a single outline for a terrace of houses is
an adequate first-order approximation for many purposes. Further
refinement by splitting into individual dwellings is a possible "next
step" if the information is available and if a mapper has time. 

--colin 

On 2016-03-16 17:12, Blake Girardot wrote:

> I am reluctant to suggest that mapping large groups of buildings as one 
> outline is a good idea. As I said, to me it is a last resort and should be 
> avoided at all costs. Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped 
> buildings outlined as building just because that is a lot easier and then 
> leave the detailed mapping to someone else.
> 
> But that being said, since it is acceptable to map large blocks of buildings 
> as building in some circumstances, I think we might need a new value to the 
> building=* key.
> 
> Most data consumers that I work with usually consider building=yes to 
> indicate one building.
> 
> If we know we are mapping multiple buildings under one polygon would it be a 
> good idea to add something like a 'multiple' value to the key?
> 
> building=multiple
> 
> That would also make it easier to locate them for further refined mapping in 
> the future.
> 
> cheers
> blake
> 
> On 3/16/2016 4:48 PM, althio wrote: Simon Poole wrote: IMHO we always allow 
> and support progression from rough to more detailed. 
> +1
> 
> Philip Barnes wrote: Mike Thompson wrote: My feeling is that individual 
> buildings should be mapped.
> 
> In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
> such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
> what roofline belongs to which building.
> 
> I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you 
> can always improve it after more surveys.

+1

I agree it is good to have rough mapping and let it improve over time.

Back to OP question:
Once you trace a rough outline for multiple buildings, what is the tag?
building=yes? or another value?
with a note=*? a fixme=*?

- althio

___
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] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 8:49 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :

> (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its
> own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has
> been demolished).
>


yes, it happens. One of the reasons is that buildings don't fly ;-)
They are standing on the ground, exercising pressure on the ground, and if
you remove the pressure (=building) at one side it might happen (depending
on the force and the ground) that part of the ground below an adjacent
building "moves" into this now "pressure-free" area. It happens almost
always, but it depends how much it does if the other buildings still remain
or collapse...
Still I wouldn't say that in these cases the building couldn't stand on its
own, it is a technical error of not having stabilzed the ground below
sufficiently.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Ralph Aytoun]

Hi all,

I notice the same trend happening with nearly all discussions. 

Instead of being able to consistently look at and discuss these key features as 
a world-wide general term the discussion tends to become mired in precise local 
situations.

The discussion was originally about the key ‘building’ which is a general term 
used to indicate a structure of some kind (this would be the broadest 
definition which would be acceptable in nearly every part of the world).

The value would be what defines the more precise description of that structure 
(e.g. Single household, multiple use, shed, garage, etc.)

With armchair mapping it may not always be possible to identify the extent of 
single buildings (as in an informal slum area, or a complex high rise city 
centre where the imagery is oblique).

It is preferable in this situation to allow the indication that there are 
structures there that need more detailed sorting and am in agreement with Blake 
about the possibility of adding a tag building=multiple which should flag up in 
any validation process as needing attention (as highway=road does). I also 
agree that this should be only used as a last resort and sparingly.

At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot identify 
individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area or because 
the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them to indicate that 
there are structures there but need more attention.







From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:55 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building


2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow :

  I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the 
building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses.


yes, multiple addresses on the same building do occur, at least in some 
regions. I am aware of Germany and Italy where it both happens (in Italy it is 
the standard). Assigning addresses to a building can make sense in some cases 
(areas), but it definitely doesn't (always) in others.


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] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun :

>
> At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot
> identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area
> or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them
> to indicate that there are structures there but need more attention.
>


IMHO if you can't identify individual buildings because you are working
from remote and don't know the area and the aerial imagery is not sharp
enough, you simply shouldn't map individual buildings and refrain from
using the building tag. Use the landuse tag, map the areas and wait for
better imagery, or use alternative methods if you are on the ground and
know how to do it.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some
> cases such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to
> work out what roofline belongs to which building.
>
Yes, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether one is
dealing with one or several buildings. We should do our best make the
determination and go with it.

>
> I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you
> can always improve it after more surveys.
>
What I have seen is entire blocks mapped as a building in a rather sloppy
fashion when it obviously contains many buildings as well as areas where
there are no buildings.

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

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 03/19/2016 05:41 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's 
probably sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house


tourism=guest_house
guest_house=clandestine

Beside all the arguments previously expressed here, many owners use 
AirBnB as undeclared income and the last thing they want is fiscal 
authorities noticing that their property is a guest house.



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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 19 March 2016 at 07:41, johnw  wrote:

> OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of
> things. Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are
> worth labeling at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous.

It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to
some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? The
people who live near them? Tourists? Mountaineers? Ornithologists?
Aviators? Geologists? Climatologists? Oil prospectors?).

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/03/2016 04:41, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's 
probably sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house but personally 
as one who frequently uses AirBnB


It'll depend on the individual location, won't it?  Some I'm sure will 
be essentially normal guest houses who just happen to do most or all of 
their business via AirBnB; some will be occasionally-let rooms in 
private houses that most certainly aren't.  Presumably the usual OSM 
guidelines apply - when you visit a place you decide how best to 
categorise it?


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according 
> to some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to 
> whom? The people who live near them? Tourists? Mountaineers? 
> Ornithologists? Aviators? Geologists? Climatologists? Oil 
> prospectors?).

Exactly.

Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sg%C3%B9rr_Dearg

This is the notorious "Inaccessible Pinnacle". If you're a mountaineer,
specifically a Munro bagger, it's a highly significant peak: it's the
hardest Munro (Scottish peak over 3000ft) to get. If you're a tourist
looking for pretty mountains, though, it's probably not significant; it's
just, well, a bit of rock. Wider cultural significance? I couldn't tell you.
Somewhere between the two: certainly less than Ben Nevis, but how do you
decide the "importance" of the hardest peak to climb in Scotland which just
happens to be an anonymous lump of rock?

Importance means value judgements. One of the reasons OSM is so successful
is that our data doesn't make value judgements. This allows people to make
their own maps with their own value judgements. This is why OSM has become,
from nowhere, the world's pre-eminent geodata source for walking and cycling
- because every other dataset is car-biased. Let's not close off future uses
of OSM by imposing centralised value judgements on its data.

John Willis wrote:
> Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms 
> via some GIS data is ridiculous. 

It's only ridiculous, to be blunt, if you're no good at GIS. I show
identically-tagged pubs at different zoom levels on cycle.travel based on my
own criteria, not some importance scale that someone else has decreed. It
takes me about three lines of PostGIS and two lines of CartoCSS. It isn't
hard at all.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/importance-tag-for-transportation-etc-tp5870183p5870224.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/03/2016 07:41, johnw wrote:
OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of 
things. Mountains are no different.


Great!  Let's gather lots of data about each place...

Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms 
via some GIS data is ridiculous.


No, as Andy and Richard have already pointed out it's the _exact 
opposite_ of that.  Richard's already mentioned how he gives pubs 
different prominence depending on where they're located; many of the 
"specialist maps created with OSM data" use some other data (relevant to 
that map) to decide what to render and when (e.g. historical tags, 
railway tags, whatever).




So we render them all equally - which is equally as ridiculous.


Who's this "we"?  There are lots of maps made with OSM data; there are 5 
different ones on osm.org.  A related issue that I've been thinking for 
a while now how to make natural=peak render sensibly when there are lots 
of them together, like here for example:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.9348/-3.5334

Even by the "does it look impressive from the road" measure, some of 
those "natural=peak" I suspect are really very prominent, some of them 
are not, and some probably aren't really peaks at all (we've had a bit 
of an issue in GB with a keen but somewhat misguided mapper adding 
spot-heights from historic maps as "peaks", some of which have since 
become quarries).


What isn't going to work is deciding that some of them are, by some 
measure, "important".  We got to that problem (via a different route) 
with individual trees and lots of problems ensued.  According to 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=natural%3Dpeak there are 
over 14k natural=peak in GB; it's very likely that be any global 
"importance" measure _none_ of those in that map view are.  Even some 
local measure isn't going to work as I'm certainly not going to review 
14k bits of data and with no local knowledge try and come up with some 
"importance" value.


What we need to do instead is come up with a way of using other 
verifiable data, perhaps from OSM, perhaps from other sources, that 
allows maps to decide whether it is, in their eyes "important".


Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Simon Poole]

IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed.

If actual building outlines are difficult to determine then one outline
for the complex is completely OK. Typical example: medieval cities.

Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe:
> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
> building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
> There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure,
> not the hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define
> organically grown blocks.
>
> There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is
> undocumented and maybe overly precise.
>
> -- 
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap
>  | Twitter
>  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
>  | Reddit
>  | Wordpress
> 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe :
> 
> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes 
> tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?


IMHO we should try to map every building as its own object, but you can't be 
sure that something mapped as building=* is indeed exactly one building and not 
more and not just a part of a building.



> There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not the 
> hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define organically grown 
> blocks.


building=terrace can mean a terrace on its own but most of the times it is 
unfortunately a short form for terraced_house ;-)
If it's intended for the latter I'd still expect individual houses to be 
mapped, not the whole block as one object


> 
> There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is 
> undocumented and maybe overly precise.


which sense can they make if there is no documentation for it? Are they 
different grades of specificity for the same building? E.g. 
building=residential;detached_house;bungalow (always the same building)
Or are they several buildings represented by the same outline? Or are they 
building uses and not building types?


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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Mike Thompson]

Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020

(given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be
corrected/improved soon)

In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is
non-building space between them.

Mike

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> 2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun :
>
>
> At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot
> identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area
> or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them
> to indicate that there are structures there but need more attention.
>
>
>
> IMHO if you can't identify individual buildings because you are working
> from remote and don't know the area and the aerial imagery is not sharp
> enough, you simply shouldn't map individual buildings and refrain from
> using the building tag. Use the landuse tag, map the areas and wait for
> better imagery, or use alternative methods if you are on the ground and
> know how to do it.
>
>
> It is not that simple and certainly not about aerial imagery quality, we
> are not all mapping planned North American cities where everything is a
> perfect right angle.
>
> In the real world we are mapping towns with medieval building patterns
> that evolved over millennia and even modern buildings that replace older
> buildings must still fit within this plan.
>
> Whilst you can see roof lines, the buildings can fill the entire block and
> from above it is not possible to work out what frontage building each
> roofline belongs to. To say that in this case just map as landuse is
> totally wrong. A single building is a start, or more likely several single
> buildings. It is far easier to then survey the area on the ground having
> something to improve than working with a blank landuse.
>
> For example you may visit a shop and as you wander through there will be
> nooks and crannys, it may open out into a another building and armed with
> the roughly mapped buildings you can work out where you are and that
> belongs to that building and improve the mapping.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] building=yes for multiple building

[althio]

Mike Thompson wrote:
> Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020
>
> (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be
> corrected/improved soon)
>
> In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is
> non-building space between them.

This seems obviously wrong.


Another example then from HOT project:

What about the bigger blocks around the mosquee in this place?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/33.60861/36.30919

Fair tracing?
Tag? building=yes vs landuse=residential vs building=???

- althio

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

[Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[joost schouppe]

Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes
tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not the
hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define organically
grown blocks.

There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is
undocumented and maybe overly precise.

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 03/16/2016 03:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote:
Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the 
building=yes tag ? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building ?


building=yes is a single building.

I have encountered this problem a lot in Senegal. I talked with local 
mappers and I found the root cause: university GIS courses teach them to 
map "built-up zones" and they gravitate towards building=yes for that. 
We are pushing the message that it is not the right way to do it - that 
is what landuse=* is for and there are also some place=* such as 
place=city_block.



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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to
> some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? 

All of the examples I have given are all sourced in local culture. 

Usually having things named after it, noted on road signs, depicted in 
paintings, noted in historical documents, included in historic lists (of famous 
peaks), and other *easily understood* things that provincial or regional people 
would be able to define - but be extremely difficult for a person who doesn't 
live in the country or region (or speak the language) to verify.

Is someone supposed to make a "importance" database, detailing the hundreds or 
thousands of references that a mountain's name is used in - or can some local 
mappers just tag it to influence the renderings below z15 so it doesn't look 
like a useless jumble of unordered garbage labels? 

I think it is very obvious to people here that giving an icon and label to all 
of the little points on the lip of the crater of Mt Fuji the same rendering 
priority as the entire volcano of Mt Fuji is wrong. 

I also think it is obvious that rendering an icon for a 25m AGL hill in a city 
park with the same icon and labeling as a 2500m mountain is wrong. 

Doing nothing to rectify the situation - and using an argument against 
subjective data - when so many other types of data in OSM are ranked and 
rendered with subjective, but verifiable by locals - seems obtuse, and produces 
a objectively and unarguably inferior map. 

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[althio]

Simon Poole wrote:
> IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed.

+1

Philip Barnes wrote:
> Mike Thompson wrote:
>> My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.
>>
> In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
> such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
> what roofline belongs to which building.
>
> I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you 
> can always improve it after more surveys.

+1


I agree it is good to have rough mapping and let it improve over time.

Back to OP question:
Once you trace a rough outline for multiple buildings, what is the tag?
building=yes? or another value?
with a note=*? a fixme=*?

- althio

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Mar 19, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept

So displaying more important train stations that:

- are more well known, so people would look for them.
- are popular points for people (for stations, more amenities and trains), so 
marking the ones more likely to be the ones people want (AKA the big station on 
the big line vs the little unimportant station on the nearby line that has a 
similar name)

-are better to be mapped because they provide spatial awareness because their 
location is widely known 

Applies equally to mountains or stations. 

In Japan, there is a national joke about people showing up in my (tiny) town 
town to climb my Fuji because the name of the station in my town is "below Mt 
Fuji" in Chinese. The tiny 6 story tall mountain is named my Fuji, as are 
hundreds of other little hills and mountains in Japan. 

Google used it in a national ad campaign to promote "ok Google", showing a 
bunch of Americans showing up at the wrong station, and some people could help 
them (thanks to google translation or whatever). 

https://youtu.be/FWDpu0CDfHk

I'm sure the popular train stations near Fuji and the little local stop for 
grandmas and students to go to the grocery store would have different 
importance rankings. 

Similarly,

Hiding the Mt Fuji red volcano icon under orange little icons for its little 
labeled points Obscures the more important label of Mt Fuji with labels and 
icons 99% of people don't care about, right?

Hiding the rendered label of a very important station because it has some other 
nearby local stations that crowd out its rendering seems like the same thing to 
me. 

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 19 March 2016 at 17:47, John Willis  wrote:

>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to
>> some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom?
>
> All of the examples I have given are all sourced in local culture.
>
> Usually having things named after it, noted on road signs, depicted in 
> paintings, noted in historical documents, included in historic lists (of 
> famous peaks), and other *easily understood* things that provincial or 
> regional people would be able to define - but be extremely difficult for a 
> person who doesn't live in the country or region (or speak the language) to 
> verify.

So far as "importance is concerned, that's not "sourced", that's your
*subjective* interpretation.


> an argument against subjective data

You have yet to give evidence that there is any subjective data
relating to the very vague concept of "importance".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 9:21 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially
> extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does that
> become a new Building?



a bridge is definitely not a building, a bus shelter might be considered a
building, depending on your definition (by the one you cited it wouldn't
because it is not lockable, but beeing lockable is a overly strict
requirement that isn't commonly used). I would see it like this: the tag
building in osm covers both, actual buildings but also some technical
structures (looking somehow like a building, but not suited for humans to
enter and/or stay).

Regarding the extension I would say that these are still the same building
in many cases (in others it isn't, e.g. if it's completely detached, if
it's structurally independent and has its own entrance, etc.). Might be
worth considering the "building:part" key as well for many of these.

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 18.03.2016 18:50, Chris Hill napisał(a):

There are no official tags. Only tags that are used and / or 
documented.


I understand it, just used informal wording. I meant "accepted by voting 
and documented as such on Wiki", which is - well - longer.


--
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that could lead to 
> better rendered maps or better routing. 



importance is relative and it depends on your criteria which things you 
consider more important than others. I agree that we should better map the 
properties that make something important rather than stuff it all in a 
generalized "importance" tag. For mountains this will likely mean to look at 
prominence and topographic isolation, for train stations it can be amount of 
passengers or trains per time, or size (amount of platforms), availability of 
highspeed trains, etc., for airports similarly you could look at amount and 
size of runway/s, passengers/time, amount of connections etc.
the problem with rendering is that these calculations are typically too 
expensive to do them on the fly, but we could use precomputed data and 
integrate it in a coastline like way (external shape file or pre-computed 
attribute)


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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow :

> I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the
> building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses.



yes, multiple addresses on the same building do occur, at least in some
regions. I am aware of Germany and Italy where it both happens (in Italy it
is the standard). Assigning addresses to a building can make sense in some
cases (areas), but it definitely doesn't (always) in others.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Simon Poole]

We are really discussing two different issues here.

- use of building key for buildup areas that should be
landuse=residential or other landuse variants, don't think anybody
disagrees that building is misplaced is such situations

- use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one
building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual
component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its
own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has
been demolished).

Simon

Am 17.03.2016 um 06:41 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier:
> On 03/16/2016 03:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote:
>> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
>> building=yes tag ? Or does building=yes imply it is one single
>> building ?
>
> building=yes is a single building.
>
> I have encountered this problem a lot in Senegal. I talked with local
> mappers and I found the root cause: university GIS courses teach them
> to map "built-up zones" and they gravitate towards building=yes for
> that. We are pushing the message that it is not the right way to do it
> - that is what landuse=* is for and there are also some place=* such
> as place=city_block.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 19.03.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Mike Thompson :
> 
> Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020


here some other examples 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/941438

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60616962

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

[Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Daniel Koć]

I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use 
importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of 
railway:station_category=* :


http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html

The proposition is 7 years old:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance

and is quite generic. I think it would help for example with rendering 
airports without resorting to less clear properties like size:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1734

and it would be good to have universal scheme instead of 
railway:station_category=* or flights_range=*. Looks like it is being 
already used and quite popular:


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/importance

What do you think about making this scheme official?

--
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]


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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Blake Girardot]

I am reluctant to suggest that mapping large groups of buildings as one 
outline is a good idea. As I said, to me it is a last resort and should 
be avoided at all costs. Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily 
mapped buildings outlined as building just because that is a lot easier 
and then leave the detailed mapping to someone else.


But that being said, since it is acceptable to map large blocks of 
buildings as building in some circumstances, I think we might need a new 
value to the building=* key.


Most data consumers that I work with usually consider building=yes to 
indicate one building.


If we know we are mapping multiple buildings under one polygon would it 
be a good idea to add something like a 'multiple' value to the key?


building=multiple

That would also make it easier to locate them for further refined 
mapping in the future.


cheers
blake



On 3/16/2016 4:48 PM, althio wrote:

Simon Poole wrote:

IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed.


+1

Philip Barnes wrote:

Mike Thompson wrote:

My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.


In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
what roofline belongs to which building.

I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you can 
always improve it after more surveys.


+1


I agree it is good to have rough mapping and let it improve over time.

Back to OP question:
Once you trace a rough outline for multiple buildings, what is the tag?
building=yes? or another value?
with a note=*? a fixme=*?

- althio

___
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] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

I was told point-blank by the head of OSM-carto on github That (as I remember 
it) 

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/323

A) "importance" is unverifiable, so it is useless for OSM. 

Gravitystorm:
"Importance' and related concepts fails the absolutely vital verifiability 
test, so it's not a suitable concept for OSM."

B) I assume then it will not be supported in -carto renderings. 

My example us d mountains in the post, as I had pictures to illustrate the 
issue. 

I wanted importance=local-city-regional-national-international or similar tag 
to put on mountains to control when it is rendered (So Mt Fuji and Mt Everest 
is rendered at a very low zoom level, mt Rushmore is rendered at a little 
closer zoom, San Gregornio (in Los Angeles) is rendered at a regional level, Mt 
Helix on a city level, and My tiny, unimportant little peak next to Mt Helix is 
rendered at a very local level (Grossmont Peak). 

This allows someone to say "these little named points all over the top of Mt 
Fuji (there are 7) should only be rendered locally (high zoom) and the Mt Fuji 
volcano icon should be rendered at z8 or something.  

OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that could lead to 
better rendered maps or better routing. 

Javbw

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:38 AM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> 
> I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use 
> importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of 
> railway:station_category=* :
> 
> http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html
> 
> The proposition is 7 years old:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance
> 
> and is quite generic. I think it would help for example with rendering 
> airports without resorting to less clear properties like size:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1734
> 
> and it would be good to have universal scheme instead of 
> railway:station_category=* or flights_range=*. Looks like it is being already 
> used and quite popular:
> 
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/importance
> 
> What do you think about making this scheme official?
> 
> -- 
> "Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] building=yes for multiple building

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun :
> >  
> > At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they
> > cannot identify individual buildings, either because of the
> > complexity of the area or because the imagery is not sharp enough.
> > This approach will allow them to indicate that there are structures
> > there but need more attention.
> > 
> 
> IMHO if you can't identify individual buildings because you are
> working from remote and don't know the area and the aerial imagery is
> not sharp enough, you simply shouldn't map individual buildings and
> refrain from using the building tag. Use the landuse tag, map the
> areas and wait for better imagery, or use alternative methods if you
> are on the ground and know how to do it.
> 
It is not that simple and certainly not about aerial imagery quality,
we are not all mapping planned North American cities where everything
is a perfect right angle.
In the real world we are mapping towns with medieval building patterns
that evolved over millennia and even modern buildings that replace
older buildings must still fit within this plan.
Whilst you can see roof lines, the buildings can fill the entire block
and from above it is not possible to work out what frontage building
each roofline belongs to. To say that in this case just map as landuse
is totally wrong. A single building is a start, or more likely several
single buildings. It is far easier to then survey the area on the
ground having something to improve than working with a blank landuse.
For example you may visit a shop and as you wander through there will
be nooks and crannys, it may open out into a another building and armed
with the roughly mapped buildings you can work out where you are and
that belongs to that building and improve the mapping.
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Dave Swarthout]

My original intent in this post was to determine what tags to use in
describing the guest house as an AirBnB venue. The issue of legality hadn't
really occurred to me.

If it turns out that such places are legitimate to tag, how should I
indicate that they are "administered" through AirBnB? The AirBnB connection
isn't a franchise in the usual sense, nor does AirBnB "operate" those
venues. AirBnB takes a percentage of the rent from the owner when the
reservation is made through the AirBnB website but AFAIK the owner is also
free to rent the place separately.

I think I will defer adding any of them until the issue of legality is
resolved. I will also talk to some hosts and look at the AirBnB terms of
agreement to get a better feel for the type of contract involved in the
arrangement between the parties.

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 19/03/2016 04:41, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's probably
>> sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house but personally as one who
>> frequently uses AirBnB
>>
>
> It'll depend on the individual location, won't it?  Some I'm sure will be
> essentially normal guest houses who just happen to do most or all of their
> business via AirBnB; some will be occasionally-let rooms in private houses
> that most certainly aren't.  Presumably the usual OSM guidelines apply -
> when you visit a place you decide how best to categorise it?
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 10:28 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:

> > But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and
> > prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many
> > international tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous
> > vents and enjoy the hot spring resorts inside the caldera. 
> 
> 
> I'd say: tourism=attraction for this volcano (admittedly another way
> of saying important=yes), the presence of the resorts also indicates
> importance. Is this checkable automatically? Not sure (of course you
> can check for this if you know what you're looking for, but a
> different place might have completely different reasons to be
> "important")

Correct, there are so many different aspects that influence the
importance, that it is nearly impossible to determine the importance so
that it fits to the importance in reality and how people see it.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 16.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Blake Girardot :
> 
> Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined as 
> building just because that is a lot easier and then leave the detailed 
> mapping to someone else.


I sometimes encountered whole blocks mapped as a single building. Often I moved 
these to landuse and removed the building tag.


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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 02:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis :
> > 
> > OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that
> > could lead to better rendered maps or better routing. 
> 
> 
> 
> importance is relative and it depends on your criteria which things
> you consider more important than others. I agree that we should
> better map the properties that make something important rather than
> stuff it all in a generalized "importance" tag. For mountains this
> will likely mean to look at prominence and topographic isolation, for
> train stations it can be amount of passengers or trains per time, or
> size (amount of platforms), availability of highspeed trains, etc.,
> for airports similarly you could look at amount and size of runway/s,
> passengers/time, amount of connections etc.
> the problem with rendering is that these calculations are typically
> too expensive to do them on the fly, but we could use precomputed
> data and integrate it in a coastline like way (external shape file or
> pre-computed attribute)

If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is subjective,
but there is no alternative. Without such categorization by mappers, it
would be necessary to calculate the type of road just by absolute
values such as the width, the surface, the number of cars per hour, the
number of lanes, etc. Everybody should agree that that would not work.

As the person who created that station importance draft, I will focus
on stations, but for other features like mountain peaks the situation
should be similar: It is not possible to calculate the importance of a
station just by some values. Values like the number of platforms or
passengers are just absolute values, but the importance of a station is
a relative information which is influenced by neighbouring features.
Without any importance-tag, it would be necessary to analyse many other
feature, which is very difficult. The importance of a station is
influenced by so many aspects that it is nearly impossible to calculate
it, especially in a reasonable time.

I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult to
measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other mappers. I
do not see a possibility to map such values for a larger number of
stations.

I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
algorithm might be very intransparent. There will be situations where
such algorithms produce results that does not fit to reality, but
mappers will not have any possibility to influence the results.
Currently one strength of OSM, compared to many commercial services, is
that we use the local knowledge of the mappers. With subjective tags
like highway=* they can map information that helps applications to
produce the best results.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

[Richard]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:33:13AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 16/03/2016 12:33 AM, Stefano wrote:
> >
> >
> >2016-03-15 11:32 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring  >>:
> >
> >On 15/03/2016 09:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >and do you go to the same shops?
> >
> >
> >Yes. Chandleries cater for all types of small craft.
> >
> >
> >
> >Chandlers are called also to supply materials and groceries to vessels
> >calling at the port (container / conventional ships), at least in my
> >company I hear them called as such also when dealing with foreign
> >agents...
> >
> >Stefano
> >
> >
> 
> Chandlers are commonly also used in Australia and New Zealand by those
> concerned. I see no reason not to continue using the term that is inuse in
> British English.

although I like traditions I think "boat supplies" has advantages like
beeing more specific and descriptive. Having read all the different
opinions and the wikipedia articles in 2 languages about ship chandlers
it seems that the term has a fairly broad meaning and not every ship 
chandler would do boat supplies for small boats for example which was 
the OPs main objective.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Mar 20, 2016, at 3:30 AM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> So far as "importance is concerned, that's not "sourced", that's your
> *subjective* interpretation.

Go google search for:

赤城(Generic images for Akagi) 

赤城神社. (The shrine and related shrines) 

赤城山 (the mountian itself) 

All the results are for things named after that mountain. There are my sources. 
Sources locals understand, because they recognize the connection the mountain 
and the things named after it. 

I can't scoop up images of all the road signs using "mount Akagi" as a control 
point for direction, paintings depicting the mountain.

I can point to it being one of the "3 mountains of Jomo" and on the list of the 
100 famous mountains of Japan" - and to the lack of other mountains being on 
the list. 

I can point to it being labeled as a visible  object on the observation deck 
map for the Tokyo Sky Tree.

But I can't aggravated this into some buzzfeed style listicle "11 mountains in 
Gunma you should see" - or a GIS database. 

Nor can I point to the lack of images for Kessamaru. Do you expect me to 
somehow meta-aggregate The Internet to show you why some mount and I some 
region should be labeled more or less prominently than others? Or can we use 
the power of locally sourced familiarity  that OSM is supposed to be drawing 
from? 

~~~

This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have ever 
dealt with as an OSM mapper. 

Q: Can we have some kind of sub-peak tag-relation so we can say "this is a 
small subpeak of a larger mountian, instead of the subpeaks competing with the 
main peak for rendering? 

A: no. It will get too confusing. And people will want to tag climbing 
prominence, and that is a big can of worms we don't want to open. 

Q: can we use a "hill" tag, so we can separate out these ~100 foot AGL little 
lumps that are named but shouldn't be rendered as a mountain peak?

A: no, we can't decide where to draw the line, so a 25m AGL mountain and mt 
Everest get tagged and rendered the same.

Q: then can we use this "local information" for locals to influence when  peaks 
are rendered, maybe using some kind of "importance" tag or something?

A: No, because We don't consider sources in aggregate - we're hoping for some 
magical, impossible GIS information solution that has never existed and will 
never exist, because local opinion is "subjective" and we want to be myopic 
that we are totally dependent on this local subjective nature for a myriad of 
other tags.

~

Getting the maps to render this kind of data has always required the opinion of 
the mapmakers. And OSM takes mappers' opinions with so many other tags - but 
for this it is unacceptable. for some unexplainable reason and hand wave saying 
it is somehow not empirical enough.

I can only conclude from these discussions - and comments from people 
controlling the rendering - that an *objectively* inferior or substandard map 
is good enough for the group, when it comes to mountains, because people want a 
data set to improve it that will never, ever exist. 

Javbw. 



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

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Holger Jeromin]

Dave Swarthout  Wrote in message:
> I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's probably 
> sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house but personally as one who 
> frequently uses AirBnB, I would like to be able to locate them more precisely 
> than is possible using the maps on their website, which are not very exact. 
> The locations can be off by several city blocks and when one is pulling a big 
> roller bag along behind it would be nice be able to walk directly to the 
> correct location.
> In searching Taginfo, I saw only a few instances of the word "AirBnB" and 
> most of those were tagged as operator=AirBnB. As I understand it, the 
> operators are the owners of the property whereas AirBnB is a corporation that 
> contracts with those owners in some sort of a franchise arrangement.
> Another common tag containing the term "AirBnB" is the website URL that 
> points to the specific property. The one I'm working on at the moment is near 
> where I live and is quite a nice venue:
> https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/6020019
> 
> Suggestions?

Perhaps network = fits better. 

-- 
Holger


Android NewsGroup Reader
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


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

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 20.03.2016 um 00:18 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
> 
> If it turns out that such places are legitimate to tag, how should I indicate 
> that they are "administered" through AirBnB?


they aren't administered through Airbnb. Airbnb is just one of many websites 
and services that act as an agent to bring guests and hosts together, but as a 
host you can use many of these at the same time (there no exclusivity). It's 
similar to tagging that a venue has an ad in a newspaper: the newspaper isn't 
administering the venue.

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