[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[David Marchal]

Hello, there.
At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is based 
either on a common historical background, for example as a medieval county or 
duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural landscape, as the Bauges 
mountains or the Mont Blanc massif. These regions are often called "pays" in 
French, but it should not be understood as a nation, and the regions I'm 
talking about do not always have an administrative representations, being often 
known only as a traditionally-named area.
Whatever, how to map such regions? I asked on a French forum, but it seems that 
the issue has not really been addressed, at least not from our point of view, 
but there may be an existing tagging scheme for that, as I see no reason for 
this issue being culturally restricted to our country. I assume that, as there 
areas do not always have clearly defined borders, they should be tagged as a 
single node, but, still, how to map them?
Awaiting your answers,
Regards.  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Colin Smale]

Good question. 

In the UK the word "country" is also used in that context, for example
"Shakespeare Country", "White Cliffs Country", "Black Country". 

As to whether a node or a polygon should be used... Personally I would
prefer an approximate polygon to a node. A node may indicate location,
but it conveys no sense of the size and shape of the area. In many cases
the local government is proud enough of these areas to put up signs on
the roads saying "You are now entering ..." or "Welcome to ..." and
these could be used as points in a first-order approximation of the
extent. 

I would suggest a relation with type=boundary and boundary=informal,
plus an indication of the accuracy/authority of the border like
source=guesswork, or signs, or local authority brochures, .. 

//colin 

On 2016-03-27 11:08, David Marchal wrote:

> Hello, there. 
> 
> At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is based 
> either on a common historical background, for example as a medieval county or 
> duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural landscape, as the Bauges 
> mountains or the Mont Blanc massif. These regions are often called "pays" in 
> French, but it should not be understood as a nation, and the regions I'm 
> talking about do not always have an administrative representations, being 
> often known only as a traditionally-named area. 
> 
> Whatever, how to map such regions? I asked on a French forum, but it seems 
> that the issue has not really been addressed, at least not from our point of 
> view, but there may be an existing tagging scheme for that, as I see no 
> reason for this issue being culturally restricted to our country. I assume 
> that, as there areas do not always have clearly defined borders, they should 
> be tagged as a single node, but, still, how to map them? 
> 
> Awaiting your answers, 
> 
> Regards. 
> ___
> 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] tagging sport=shotput or sport=shot_put?

[Warin]

On 26/03/2016 12:58 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Warin wrote on 2016/03/25 23:07:

On 25/03/2016 9:16 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Warin wrote on 2016/03/25 05:11:

I thing I prefer the sport=shot_put as that reflects wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_put


I prefer to tag all those as sport=athletics, as well as the tracks 
for long-jump and running.
You can still sub-tag if needed, but maybe the pitch is used for the 
throwing disciplines

also?


Too late to tag in a non duck way. The sports tags are all ducks.

Athletics covers things like running .. and that is not tagged under 
athletics. Athletics has a very poor use by mappers - they re using 
duck tagging.


I see sport=athletics used quite well, the 9th most frequent value in 
sport with ca 19000 tags.

running is on the second page with only 5400.


Correct. But the wiki page for Athletics has no way of 
noting/adding/separating the various sports.  And I think it too will 
fail due to anyway a mapper can see to map the individual sports.  In 
fact the wiki page on athletics in sparse on information as to what it 
applies to, I assume it excludes running? The past sport=football failed 
for much the same reason I would think and now each type of football 
has its own entry.




The athletics sports that share pitches are hammer throwing and 
discus throwing and we already have a method of combining them ... 
sports=hammer_throwing;discus_throwing.


sport=hammer_throwing = 0
sport=discus_throwing = 0


Tag info has small numbers .. showing what mappers want to map .. but no 
wiki page so there is no obvious way of tagging these sports ... so 
there are some variations;


51 sport=shot_put
7 sport=shot put
5 sport=shot-put
2 sport=shot
1 sport=Shot put
1 sport=Shot_Put

and a little of the others ..
8 sport=javelin
6 sport=hammer_throw
10 sport=discus
6 sport=discus_throw

and so on (I'm not typing them all out to document the variations that 
people are using).


If athletics is to be used it should be properly documented .. shall I 
put the tagging of running under the key athletics to a vote? Only 5,400 
instances in the data base against it ?


I view it as the same instance as shop=jewellery ... lost because of 
past use.




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 27 March 2016, David Marchal wrote:
> Hello, there.
> At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is
> based either on a common historical background, for example as a
> medieval county or duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural
> landscape, as the Bauges mountains or the Mont Blanc massif.

For mountain areas there has been some use of

place=region + region:type=mountain_area

Much of this data is however somewhat questionable due to lack of 
verifiability (exception being the Alps where there are fairly well 
established conventions of the boundaries of the subdivisions).

In principle infering approximate extents from mountain areas mapped as 
nodes based on relief data is often possible.

An alternative and possibly more specific and intuitive way of defining 
mountain areas could be mapping them as relations containing all peaks 
of these areas.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

[Tom Pfeifer]

Greg Troxel wrote on 2016/03/27 00:56:

What I do is

[...]

   * highway=service service=driveway
 ways connecting to the real roads and sort of going near where you
 are trying to go when you want to park in the parking lot (carpark),
 just enough to be connected, and trying to pick  the places that are
 more important/through roads


Well this is an idea, however it is not what service=driveway was intendend
for. It is another value that data consumers treat as 'minor' since it
means a single little way into a property, and thus does not provide
structure for the parking lot.


The latter is more or less what your service=parking_access is trying to
do.   But if for example you want to pick someone up at the front door
of a supermarket, and not park, you'd use them.   So parking_access
really isn't quite right for most of these ways.


Yes, Martin had already pointed out that we should not limit the value to 
parking.

Tod Fitch wrote on 2016/03/27 05:06:
 > It seems to me that any highway=service ought to have a service=* tag.

Ok so you do feel the void.

> Whether the specific case being discussed needs a new service=parking_access 
tag
> or if service=driveway is okay would be the discussion I’m interested in.

As said, =parking_aisle and =driveway are both minor, we need a classifier for
the major service road.

> To Tom’s point, I think a roads for many commercial areas would have a big 
grey
> area in deciding between driveway and parking_access as often the route to the
> main entrance and/or loading docks is indistinguishable from the other roads
> in the area that simply service parking.

As =main is occupied by railway mappers, =access is still on the table.
Another idea would be =major, clearly indicating the two classes of service 
roads.

tom



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging sport=shotput or sport=shot_put?

[Tom Pfeifer]

Warin wrote on 2016/03/27 12:09:

Correct. But the wiki page for Athletics has no way of noting/adding/separating 
the various sports.  And I think it too will fail due to anyway a mapper can 
see to map the individual sports.  In fact the wiki page on athletics in sparse 
on information as
to what it applies to, I assume it excludes running? The past sport=football 
failed for much the same reason I would think and now each type of football 
has its own entry.


Yes and for good reason. Soccer and American Football are comnpletly different 
sports,
and have completely different pitches.

But in this area you find a good example: Gaelic football (in which you can use 
hands)
used to be tagged as sport=gaelic_football, but that was deprecated and 
replaced by
sport=gaelic_games, since half a dozen other gaelic games are played on the 
same pitch.

Now you can easily sub-tag the specific games played on a particular pitch, 
while
a passer-by mapper can initially apply the major catagory (recognisable by the 
high goal posts)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dgaelic_games

Athletics is another case where multiple disciplines are performed on the same 
pitch/track.
So my recommendation is to tag all athletics facilities with sport=athletics, 
and sub-tag

athletics:long_jump = yes
athletics:shot_put = yes
etc.


If athletics is to be used it should be properly documented ..

> shall I put the tagging of running under the key athletics to a vote?
> Only 5,400 instances in the data base against it ?

Providing a plausible alternative tagging scheme would work best here,
see the success of the structured amenity=social_facility.
I see no need to deprecate sport=running at this stage.

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

[Colin Smale]

Whatever service=* value is used, we should try to make sure it is
related to the construction or topology of the road in some way, and not
to the many purposes to which it may be put is the necessity of multiple
values is to be avoided. A service road giving access to parking areas
may also be used to access offices or delivery areas, which could end up
needing multiple values like
service=parking_access;deliveries;executive_entrance. Either we create
values which don't require multiple values for the service tag, or we
accept that multiple values are part of the real world and just deal
with them...

//colin 

On 2016-03-27 13:08, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

> Greg Troxel wrote on 2016/03/27 00:56: 
> 
>> What I do is
> [...] 
> 
>> * highway=service service=driveway
>> ways connecting to the real roads and sort of going near where you
>> are trying to go when you want to park in the parking lot (carpark),
>> just enough to be connected, and trying to pick  the places that are
>> more important/through roads
> 
> Well this is an idea, however it is not what service=driveway was intendend
> for. It is another value that data consumers treat as 'minor' since it
> means a single little way into a property, and thus does not provide
> structure for the parking lot.
> 
>> The latter is more or less what your service=parking_access is trying to
>> do.   But if for example you want to pick someone up at the front door
>> of a supermarket, and not park, you'd use them.   So parking_access
>> really isn't quite right for most of these ways.
> 
> Yes, Martin had already pointed out that we should not limit the value to 
> parking.
> 
> Tod Fitch wrote on 2016/03/27 05:06:
>> It seems to me that any highway=service ought to have a service=* tag.
> 
> Ok so you do feel the void.
> 
>> Whether the specific case being discussed needs a new service=parking_access 
>> tag
>> or if service=driveway is okay would be the discussion I'm interested in.
> 
> As said, =parking_aisle and =driveway are both minor, we need a classifier for
> the major service road.
> 
>> To Tom's point, I think a roads for many commercial areas would have a big 
>> grey
>> area in deciding between driveway and parking_access as often the route to 
>> the
>> main entrance and/or loading docks is indistinguishable from the other roads
>> in the area that simply service parking.
> 
> As =main is occupied by railway mappers, =access is still on the table.
> Another idea would be =major, clearly indicating the two classes of service 
> roads.
> 
> tom
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 13:08:12 +0200
Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> As =main is occupied by railway mappers

Is it even a problem for service=main to mean different thing on a 
railway and a road?

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

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access (or other) for main ways on a parking lot

[Tom Pfeifer]

Colin Smale wrote on 2016/03/27 13:29:

Whatever service=* value is used, we should try to make sure it is related to 
the construction or topology of the road in some way, and not to the many 
purposes to which it may be put is the necessity of multiple values is to be 
avoided. A service road
giving access to parking areas may also be used to access offices or delivery 
areas, which could end up needing multiple values like 
service=parking_access;deliveries;executive_entrance. Either we create values 
which don't require multiple values for the
service tag, or we accept that multiple values are part of the real world and 
just deal with them...


Yes Martin pointed that out already, that's why we are looking for alternatives.
I'm not keen to have too many values in the major category, but having it marked
would be good apparantly.

Mateusz Konieczny wrote on 2016/03/27 13:43:
>> As =main is occupied by railway mappers
> Is it even a problem for service=main to mean different thing on a
> railway and a road?

Not a big problem if consumers can clearly distinguish them. If you
speak with carto experience and say that does not create problems, we
can keep it on the table, as it is quite self-explanatory.

service=main
service=access
service=major



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

[Tagging] Solar farms

[Dave F]

Hi

What's the best tag for a field filled with solar panels?

http://www.greenstatepower.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/solar-farm-2.jpg

A search of taginfo for 'solar' returned only 42 for power:solar_panel 
which, given their size & increasing popularity, seems low.


Are they being described by some other label?

Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Solar farms

[Dave F]

Ah, rubbish. Please ignore my previous post. Found what I was looking for:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:generator:method%3Dphotovoltaic#Solar_Park

Dave F.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging parade_ground?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 26.03.2016 um 22:49 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> In OSM currently
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121391269


Thank you, I understand now, I agree it could   be seen as a kind of pitch 
(like you tagged it), not sure if "parading" could be considered a kind of 
sport (while e.g. cheerleading is). What about amenity=parade_ground? 

Although this might not be a military facility, parading is kind of military 
pass time, so reusing the military tag seems also not completely unsuitable to 
me.

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

[Tagging] Recycling Containers with opening_hours or service_times

[Thorsten Alge]

Hi,

I was wondering about the tagging for recycling containers. In Germany
they have defined times in which it is allowed to use them to prevent
noise pollution.

Often the opening_hours-tag is used for that. Sometimes also
service_times and in some cases collection_times which is for another
purpose (the time when they are emptied).

Since opening_hours suggests that the container is somehow closed
outside the designated hours of business I'd personally prefer
service_times for that. But since opening_hours is way more often used,
it might be better to use that one. None of them is documented in the
wiki page. What do you think is best?

Usage world-wide for opening_hours on containers is 823 and
service_times 59.

Regards

Th.

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

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

[Richard]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:06:34AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I wonder what others think about changing the status of proposals in draft 
> mode to abandoned in the wiki. Is this something we want everyone to do after 
> a certain time, or should this be reserved to the original proponent?
> Would the situation be different if the status wasn't draft but proposed?
> If you think everybody should be able to abandon other people's proposals, 
> what would be a reasonable timespan?
> Does it depend on the actual usage of the proposed tags, and if yes, what 
> would be a reasonable threshold?

my 2c, avoid any automatisms. Some proposals need a lot of time to 
ripe.

Using talk page, contacting original author(s) would be highly
recommended.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 27.03.2016 um 11:47 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
> In the UK the word "country" is also used in that context, for example 
> "Shakespeare Country", "White Cliffs Country", "Black Country".
> 
> I would suggest a relation with type=boundary and boundary=informal, plus an 
> indication of the accuracy/authority of the border like source=guesswork, or 
> signs, or local authority brochures, ..
> 


I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it allows to 
estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be better, like a 
collection of (existing/already mapped) things inside (role) and outside (role) 
that would serve the same purpose but make it clear that it is only an estimate 
/ that there aren't clear borders anyway).

I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more verbose 
regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic, (low) mountain 
range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains, cultural, ethnographic, wine, 
etc.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Recycling Containers with opening_hours or service_times

[Éric Gillet]

2016-03-27 17:20 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Alge :

> I was wondering about the tagging for recycling containers. In Germany
> they have defined times in which it is allowed to use them to prevent
> noise pollution.


I believe that an amenity can be closed by "administrative" means (a set of
rules for containers, maybe laws for other entities) as well as by a
physical barrier (closed door for example).

It is the same argument as for administrative restrictions on roads. For
example an highway/freeway can be physically accessible for bikes, but it
doesn't mean that it is legal (or a bright idea).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Recycling Containers with opening_hours or service_times

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:20:21 +0200
Thorsten Alge  wrote:

> Since opening_hours suggests that the container is somehow closed
> outside the designated hours of business

Well, it is closed. In this case by formal means - I think that
opening_hours fits properly.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it allows to
> estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be better, like a
> collection of (existing/already mapped) things inside (role) and outside
> (role) that would serve the same purpose but make it clear that it is only
> an estimate / that there aren't clear borders anyway).
>
> I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more verbose
> regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic, (low) mountain
> range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains, cultural, ethnographic, wine,
> etc.)
>

A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about adding
neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many neighborhood
boundaries are not clearly define which would result in boundary disputes.
How is adding a rough boundary for an informal area any different?

Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone wanting to
add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary.



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29

Clifford

-- 
@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] service = parking_access (or other) for main ways on a parking lot

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:00:12 +0200
Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Mateusz Konieczny wrote on 2016/03/27 13:43:
>  >> As =main is occupied by railway mappers
>  > Is it even a problem for service=main to mean different thing on a
>  > railway and a road?
> 
> Not a big problem if consumers can clearly distinguish them. If you
> speak with carto experience and say that does not create problems, we
> can keep it on the table, as it is quite self-explanatory.
> 
> service=main
> service=access
> service=major

I would not expect problems for data consumers.

There are following potential problems:
- ways tagged both as railway and highway (I encountered cases with
  preserver rails, not sure is it happening with live railroads)
- harder to document (one wiki page for two different tags)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:50:21 -0700
Clifford Snow  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  > wrote:
> 
> > I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it
> > allows to estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be
> > better, like a collection of (existing/already mapped) things
> > inside (role) and outside (role) that would serve the same purpose
> > but make it clear that it is only an estimate / that there aren't
> > clear borders anyway).
> >
> > I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more
> > verbose regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic,
> > (low) mountain range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains,
> > cultural, ethnographic, wine, etc.)
> >
> 
> A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about
> adding neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many
> neighborhood boundaries are not clearly define which would result in
> boundary disputes. How is adding a rough boundary for an informal
> area any different?
> 
> Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone
> wanting to add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29
> 
> Clifford
> 

Given that idea of tagging natural=bay as polygons is controversial I
am not expecting this to be a good idea.

Areas with completely undefined borders should not be stored in OSM.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Anders Fougner]

Den 27. mars 2016 19.00.18 CEST, skrev Mateusz Konieczny :
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:50:21 -0700
>Clifford Snow  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> > I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it
>> > allows to estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be
>> > better, like a collection of (existing/already mapped) things
>> > inside (role) and outside (role) that would serve the same purpose
>> > but make it clear that it is only an estimate / that there aren't
>> > clear borders anyway).
>> >
>> > I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more
>> > verbose regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic,
>> > (low) mountain range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains,
>> > cultural, ethnographic, wine, etc.)
>> >
>> 
>> A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about
>> adding neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many
>> neighborhood boundaries are not clearly define which would result in
>> boundary disputes. How is adding a rough boundary for an informal
>> area any different?
>> 
>> Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone
>> wanting to add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [1]
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29
>> 
>> Clifford
>> 
>
>Given that idea of tagging natural=bay as polygons is controversial I
>am not expecting this to be a good idea.
>
>Areas with completely undefined borders should not be stored in OSM.

If I understand correctly what you mean (?), I completely disagree. 
Maps are really useless if they cannot contain names of such features that are 
hard to define the borders of (bays, cliffs, seas, neighborhoods, etc.).
Where's the border of e.g. the North Sea, the Bay/Gulf of Bothnia, and 
Skagerrak, and why should they not be on the map? (they are probably indicated 
on every useful map of northern Europe or Scandinavia) 

Anders 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:16:42 +0200
Anders Fougner  wrote:

> 
> 
> Den 27. mars 2016 19.00.18 CEST, skrev Mateusz Konieczny
> :
> >On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:50:21 -0700
> >Clifford Snow  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> >>  >> > wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it
> >> > allows to estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even
> >> > be better, like a collection of (existing/already mapped) things
> >> > inside (role) and outside (role) that would serve the same
> >> > purpose but make it clear that it is only an estimate / that
> >> > there aren't clear borders anyway).
> >> >
> >> > I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something
> >> > more verbose regarding what kind of region this is
> >> > (natural/geographic, (low) mountain range, area of lakes,
> >> > forest, desert, plains, cultural, ethnographic, wine, etc.)
> >> >
> >> 
> >> A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about
> >> adding neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that
> >> many neighborhood boundaries are not clearly define which would
> >> result in boundary disputes. How is adding a rough boundary for an
> >> informal area any different?
> >> 
> >> Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone
> >> wanting to add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> [1]
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29
> >> 
> >> Clifford
> >> 
> >
> >Given that idea of tagging natural=bay as polygons is controversial I
> >am not expecting this to be a good idea.
> >
> >Areas with completely undefined borders should not be stored in OSM.
> 
> If I understand correctly what you mean (?), I completely disagree. 
> Maps are really useless if they cannot contain names of such features
> that are hard to define the borders of (bays, cliffs, seas,
> neighborhoods, etc.). Where's the border of e.g. the North Sea, the
> Bay/Gulf of Bothnia, and Skagerrak, and why should they not be on the
> map? (they are probably indicated on every useful map of northern
> Europe or Scandinavia) 

I never said that these should not appear on maps. It is about
unfortunate fact such objects have no clear definitions - I had recent
unfortunate case of somebody expecting clear definition of borders of
Carpathians.

In that case answer strongly depends on who and how defines Carpathians.

For examples see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains
with articles in other languages. Even basic facts like length and list 
of countries where this mountain range is located are different.

OSM is not a proper place to store all possible definitions of "border
of Carpathians" or pretend to have the perfect one.

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

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Sat, 2016-03-26 at 11:06 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> FWIW, the actual reason for this mail now is this edit, but I'm more
> interested to learn about your general considerations:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare2.0&diff=next&oldid=1128997

I can agree with setting this proposal as abandoned. However, we do need
better tagging for childcare facilities and it is disappointing that the
talk Monica Stephens gave back in 2012 has apparently fallen on deaf
ears.


-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

[Georg Feddern]

At all - what's the matter with the already said "highway=service" only 
if you can not distinguish the service or if it is a "bigger" service road?


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

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 17:24 +0200, Richard wrote:
> my 2c, avoid any automatisms. Some proposals need a lot of time to 
> ripe.
> 
> Using talk page, contacting original author(s) would be highly
> recommended.

This proposal, in particular, is probably due for a revisit, especially
given that it was the example used to show a huge problem our community
didn't even know it had (and which, unfortunately, has been mostly
ignored).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 27.03.2016 um 18:50 schrieb Clifford Snow :
> 
> A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about adding 
> neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many neighborhood 
> boundaries are not clearly define which would result in boundary disputes. 
> How is adding a rough boundary for an informal area any different? 


well, this didn't prevent 12% of mappers to add neighborhoods as areas anyway: 
http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/place=neighbourhood

Tagging large things as nodes clearly lacks important information (extent), and 
it makes nested stuff impossible (or requires relations rather than getting it 
for "free" with implicit spatial hierarchies)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 27.03.2016 um 19:00 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
> 
> Areas with completely undefined borders should not be stored in OSM.


who if not the crowd would be able to iteratively come to approximations of 
these borders. As long as the existence of the area is not disputed all 
together, there will be an approximation for its border.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> well, this didn't prevent 12% of mappers to add neighborhoods as areas
> anyway: http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/place=neighbourhood
>

The discussion was around neighborhoods that did not have a clear boundary,
not the majority that have clearly defined boundaries. I believe we should
add neighborhood boundaries that are clearly defined.

>
>
> Tagging large things as nodes clearly lacks important information
> (extent), and it makes nested stuff impossible (or requires relations
> rather than getting it for "free" with implicit spatial hierarchies)
>

I agree using polygons is far superior to nodes. The question I'm raising
is do these fuzzy areas belong in OSM. Using my example for the Cascadia
(Independence Area) a polygon with the boundary could be used to search for
features in the OSM database.

Clifford

-- 
@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] Recycling Containers with opening_hours or service_times

[Thorsten Alge]

On 2016-03-27 18:44, Éric Gillet wrote:
> 2016-03-27 17:20 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Alge  >:
> 
> I was wondering about the tagging for recycling containers. In Germany
> they have defined times in which it is allowed to use them to prevent
> noise pollution.
> 
> 
> I believe that an amenity can be closed by "administrative" means (a set
> of rules for containers, maybe laws for other entities) as well as by a
> physical barrier (closed door for example).
> 
> It is the same argument as for administrative restrictions on roads. For
> example an highway/freeway can be physically accessible for bikes, but
> it doesn't mean that it is legal (or a bright idea).
> 

Well. Can't argue with that.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Anders Fougner]

>I agree using polygons is far superior to nodes. The question I'm
>raising
>is do these fuzzy areas belong in OSM. Using my example for the
>Cascadia
>(Independence Area) a polygon with the boundary could be used to search
>for
>features in the OSM database.
>
>Clifford

Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or boundary_fuzzy=yes)? 

Anders 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 27.03.2016 um 20:50 schrieb Clifford Snow :
> 
> I agree using polygons is far superior to nodes. The question I'm raising is 
> do these fuzzy areas belong in OSM.


agreed, adding fuzzy areas in a way that suggests they are well delimited areas 
(polygons) is questionable, while doing it in a way that preserves/conveyes the 
fuzziness might be easier acceptable.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner :
> 
> Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or 
> boundary_fuzzy=yes)?


that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has similar problems 
(things that seem to be in might be out and vice versa).


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Anders Fougner]

Den 27. mars 2016 21.36.01 CEST, skrev Martin Koppenhoefer 
:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner
>:
>> 
>> Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or
>boundary_fuzzy=yes)?
>
>
>that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has similar
>problems (things that seem to be in might be out and vice versa).
>
>
>cheers,
>Martin 

It's completely possible to render a name without drawing a border if the 
border is indicated as fuzzy, but still use the approximate size to determine 
which zoom level it should be rendered at. 

You might also render the border in a "fuzzy manner", whatever that means (e.g. 
using a gradient for the transition between areas of different colors). 

Anders 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Colin Smale]

If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate'
polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no way of accommodating
these regions except for a simple node. 

I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions whose
boundaries are not precisely defined). Time to talk about solutions. 

The status quo is without any guidelines, possibly leading to random
creativity according to the whim of the mapper concerned. 

Another option is to not do it, to say such things have no place in OSM,
and actively reject any attempt to do so (i.e. if anyone dares to put
"Pays de Bray" or "Shakespeare Country" into OSM, the objects will be
deleted and the mapper admonished).

Or we go for the single-node approach, and lose out on any clues about
the extent of the area concerned. 

Or we accept "best-guess" polygons with "incremental refinement." 

Any offers? 

//colin 

On 2016-03-27 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner :
>> 
>> Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or 
>> boundary_fuzzy=yes)?
> 
> that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has similar problems 
> (things that seem to be in might be out and vice versa).
> 
> 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] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Clifford Snow]

Fuzzy boundaries do have their place. Currently we use sharp boundaries for
landuse, but often the boundary is really fuzzy. A wooded area would be a
good example of a where a fuzzy boundary might be employed. But the
fuzziness of a wooded area may only be a few meters. The fuzziness
of "Shakespeare Country" is completely different.

I agree that there are advantages to including fuzzy boundaries, but we
should first document how to tag these features.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate'
> polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no way of accommodating
> these regions except for a simple node.
>
> I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions whose boundaries
> are not precisely defined). Time to talk about solutions.
>
> The status quo is without any guidelines, possibly leading to random
> creativity according to the whim of the mapper concerned.
>
> Another option is to not do it, to say such things have no place in OSM,
> and actively reject any attempt to do so (i.e. if anyone dares to put "Pays
> de Bray" or "Shakespeare Country" into OSM, the objects will be deleted and
> the mapper admonished).
>
>
> Or we go for the single-node approach, and lose out on any clues about the
> extent of the area concerned.
>
> Or we accept "best-guess" polygons with "incremental refinement."
>
> Any offers?
>
> //colin
>
> On 2016-03-27 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner :
>
> Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or
> boundary_fuzzy=yes)?
>
>
>
> that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has similar
> problems (things that seem to be in might be out and vice versa).
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
@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] setting proposals to abandoned

[Tom Pfeifer]

Shawn K. Quinn wrote on 2016/03/27 20:02:

I can agree with setting this proposal as abandoned. However, we do need
better tagging for childcare facilities and it is disappointing that the
talk Monica Stephens gave back in 2012 has apparently fallen on deaf
ears.


I just watched that talk and fully disagree. The talk was using anecdotes
as evidence and quite rhetorical. The proposal cited as example was rejected
because it was immature and self-contradictory and had a fuzzy scope, not 
because
the male contributors to OSM would not be able to classify child care 
facilities,
or not interested in.

The true aspect in the talk was the cultural diversification in educational and
childcare systems, which was insufficiently considered in the previous 
approaches.

These facilities are like the highway tag, they need national interpretation
how to use them .

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging sport=shotput or sport=shot_put?

[Warin]

On 27/03/2016 10:24 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Warin wrote on 2016/03/27 12:09:
Correct. But the wiki page for Athletics has no way of 
noting/adding/separating the various sports.  And I think it too will 
fail due to anyway a mapper can see to map the individual sports.  In 
fact the wiki page on athletics in sparse on information as
to what it applies to, I assume it excludes running? The past 
sport=football failed for much the same reason I would think and 
now each type of football has its own entry.


Yes and for good reason. Soccer and American Football are comnpletly 
different sports,

and have completely different pitches.

But in this area you find a good example: Gaelic football (in which 
you can use hands)
used to be tagged as sport=gaelic_football, but that was deprecated 
and replaced by
sport=gaelic_games, since half a dozen other gaelic games are played 
on the same pitch.


Now you can easily sub-tag the specific games played on a particular 
pitch, while
a passer-by mapper can initially apply the major catagory 
(recognisable by the high goal posts)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dgaelic_games

Athletics is another case where multiple disciplines are performed on 
the same pitch/track.


No!

Running sports have a particular track, not used for shot put, hammer, 
discus, long jump etc etc.
I don't think long jump pitches are not used for any other sport? Do you 
have an example?
Discus and hammer throws can share the same 'cage' ... but that means 
those 'caged' areas cannot be used for javelin, high jump, pole vault etc.


Sports that are played on the same pitch/track are not grouped together 
... for example netball and basketball can share pitches .. as they can 
also share pitches with tennis too ...


So my recommendation is to tag all athletics facilities with 
sport=athletics, and sub-tag


athletics:long_jump = yes
athletics:shot_put = yes
etc.


If athletics is to be used it should be properly documented ..

> shall I put the tagging of running under the key athletics to a vote?
> Only 5,400 instances in the data base against it ?

Providing a plausible alternative tagging scheme would work best here,
see the success of the structured amenity=social_facility.
I see no need to deprecate sport=running at this stage.


So .. you see sport=running as viable.
Then using the same logic sport=shot_put is also viable ... and so on 
for the other 'athletic' sports.


?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Dave Swarthout]

This sort of object is common in Thailand. We have many gated communities
here whose boundaries are not exactly known although they are sometimes
fairly obvious in aerial imagery because of being surrounded by a wall or
fence of some sort. I create a polygon using Bing imagery, tag it as
place=neighbourhood, name=* and add a fixme or note tag indicating that the
boundary is inexact. Later, if a mapper has better data available they can
update that boundary.

Most polygons in OSM are simply not precise enough to define the property
boundaries or even the object's position exactly. Such measurements are,
practically speaking, beyond the capability of our instruments, and we must
accept that in our tagging philosophy. Obviously, forests and woods,
wetlands, and the scrub bordering them are not clearly defined. Yet we
usually tag them as areas rather than nodes so they will show up in a more
useful manner on a map.

I see no problem with this whatsoever.

Cheers,
Dave

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Fuzzy boundaries do have their place. Currently we use sharp boundaries
> for landuse, but often the boundary is really fuzzy. A wooded area would be
> a good example of a where a fuzzy boundary might be employed. But the
> fuzziness of a wooded area may only be a few meters. The fuzziness
> of "Shakespeare Country" is completely different.
>
> I agree that there are advantages to including fuzzy boundaries, but we
> should first document how to tag these features.
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Colin Smale 
> wrote:
>
>> If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate'
>> polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no way of accommodating
>> these regions except for a simple node.
>>
>> I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions whose
>> boundaries are not precisely defined). Time to talk about solutions.
>>
>> The status quo is without any guidelines, possibly leading to random
>> creativity according to the whim of the mapper concerned.
>>
>> Another option is to not do it, to say such things have no place in OSM,
>> and actively reject any attempt to do so (i.e. if anyone dares to put "Pays
>> de Bray" or "Shakespeare Country" into OSM, the objects will be deleted and
>> the mapper admonished).
>>
>>
>> Or we go for the single-node approach, and lose out on any clues about
>> the extent of the area concerned.
>>
>> Or we accept "best-guess" polygons with "incremental refinement."
>>
>> Any offers?
>>
>> //colin
>>
>> On 2016-03-27 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner :
>>
>> Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or
>> boundary_fuzzy=yes)?
>>
>>
>>
>> that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has similar
>> problems (things that seem to be in might be out and vice versa).
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Warin]

The precision/accuracy is not only limited by the instruments used but 
also the knowledge used.


For some things OSM has access to very precise data. In other instances 
it is fuzzy. For some things .. the past entries has been much improved 
by new data from other sources  (sometimes opening of government sources)


No mater the precision/accuracy .. is the information 
usefull/informative? That should be the criteria for data entry, not 
its' accuracy/precision. Signifying the accuracy/precision has no formal 
tag .. I usually enter a note if I am concerned, or if I am really 
uncertain and want to wave a flag that it should be fixed .. then a 
fixme tag suits. But I have no objection to 'fuzzy' data ... provided it 
is usefull/informative.


On 28/03/2016 9:59 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
This sort of object is common in Thailand. We have many gated 
communities here whose boundaries are not exactly known although they 
are sometimes fairly obvious in aerial imagery because of being 
surrounded by a wall or fence of some sort. I create a polygon using 
Bing imagery, tag it as place=neighbourhood, name=* and add a fixme or 
note tag indicating that the boundary is inexact. Later, if a mapper 
has better data available they can update that boundary.


Most polygons in OSM are simply not precise enough to define the 
property boundaries or even the object's position exactly. Such 
measurements are, practically speaking, beyond the capability of our 
instruments, and we must accept that in our tagging philosophy. 
Obviously, forests and woods, wetlands, and the scrub bordering them 
are not clearly defined. Yet we usually tag them as areas rather than 
nodes so they will show up in a more useful manner on a map.


I see no problem with this whatsoever.

Cheers,
Dave

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Clifford Snow 
mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote:


Fuzzy boundaries do have their place. Currently we use sharp
boundaries for landuse, but often the boundary is really fuzzy. A
wooded area would be a good example of a where a fuzzy boundary
might be employed. But the fuzziness of a wooded area may only be
a few meters. The fuzziness of "Shakespeare Country" is completely
different.

I agree that there are advantages to including fuzzy boundaries,
but we should first document how to tag these features.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Colin Smale
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow
'accurate' polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no
way of accommodating these regions except for a simple node.

I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions
whose boundaries are not precisely defined). Time to talk
about solutions.

The status quo is without any guidelines, possibly leading to
random creativity according to the whim of the mapper concerned.

Another option is to not do it, to say such things have no
place in OSM, and actively reject any attempt to do so (i.e.
if anyone dares to put "Pays de Bray" or "Shakespeare Country"
into OSM, the objects will be deleted and the mapper admonished).

Or we go for the single-node approach, and lose out on any
clues about the extent of the area concerned.

Or we accept "best-guess" polygons with "incremental refinement."

Any offers?

//colin

On 2016-03-27 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:




sent from a phone


Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner
mailto:anders.foug...@gmail.com>>:

Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or
boundary_fuzzy=yes)?



that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has
similar problems (things that seem to be in might be out and
vice versa).


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





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

Re: [Tagging] Solar farms

[François Lacombe]

Hi Dave,

Indeed power=generator + generator:method=photovoltaic is definitely
what you need.

Just remember power=generator is intended for devices instead of facilities.
In your case, power=generator should apply on individual photovoltaic
modules or on areas where several equivalent modules are installed.

In case of a dedicated facility designed to produce electricity with
photovoltaic modules, you may be interested to surround the whole site
with a power=plant area.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dplant

On both generator and facility, it's highly useful to add operator
name if known and output power with generator:output:electricity in MW
as mentioned.

But power=plant isn't suitable for individual roof where PV modules
are installed for domestic purpose as well.


Feel free to ask for more information if needed

All the best


François
François Lacombe

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux


2016-03-27 15:28 GMT+02:00 Dave F :
> Ah, rubbish. Please ignore my previous post. Found what I was looking for:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:generator:method%3Dphotovoltaic#Solar_Park
>
>
> Dave F.
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] Solar farms

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 9:29 AM, François Lacombe  
> wrote:
> 
> Indeed power=generator + generator:method=photovoltaic is definitely
> what you need.

A lot of solar panels I have tagged are private little installations (farmers 
convert a rice field to solar, with about 100 panels in a couple rows), and I 
tag the solar panel rows/sets individually using those tags. 

But what land use is appropriate for the land? It is usually easily mappable 
because almost all solar panel arrays I have seen are fenced on the property 
lines. 

I have been using landuse=commercial, but from some recent conversations about 
industrial, it seems I am probably wrong - though tagging industrial use land 
in the middle of residential/farm area seems a little weird. A lot of rice 
fields get converted to construction storage yards (commercial), so that is 
where my thinking came from. 

Example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.42427/139.25840

Farmers cleared some scrub and fenced off land for some panels. They have added 
a few more (not mapped yet). 

This is all used to power the local buildings, and the extra dumped back on the 
grid - it's not some solar farm to generate grid electricity for the utility 
company. 

Thoughts?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:59 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
> If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate' polygons


well, as was proposed above, we could introduce a way to store fuzzy areas 
without using polygons, or by using more than one polygon as one object 

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