Re: [Tagging] More no_u_turn

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 06 set 2016, alle ore 06:44, Nick Hocking  
> ha scritto:
> 
> What would be really easy and flexible would be to tag u_turn=no on a node.


and for a section of road where you are not allowed to make an u-turn we would 
simply add an infinite number of nodes?

IMHO it should be allowed to be tagged on ways, because unlike turning which 
can only occur on crossings, an u-turn can be performed anywhere along a road. 
In case the restriction only applies to one direction, the tag could be 
extended to something like no-u-turn:forward=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] More no_u_turn

[Nick Hocking]

My suggestion is only for intersections.
U_turns along a road are a whole new ball-game and are dependant on inter
carriageway markings  that are not normally tagged. I think these turns are
best left to the driver, the map-data and the router should ignore them.

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

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that
> "name" on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?
>


Thank you all for your contributions, I have now modified the cave entrance
page accordingly to make clear that this is the entrance object, i.e.
name should be the name of the entrance
cave:name of the cave it leads to
ref should be the ref of the entrance (if any), alternatively ref:=*
where org is the issuer/maintainer of the ref
cave:ref for the ref of the cave it leads to.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance#Tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] More no_u_turn

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-06 9:40 GMT+02:00 Nick Hocking :

> My suggestion is only for intersections.
> U_turns along a road are a whole new ball-game and are dependant on inter
> carriageway markings  that are not normally tagged. I think these turns are
> best left to the driver, the map-data and the router should ignore them.
>


All intersections in real life are mostly "along a road" in the OSM data
model (unless you are exactly at the intersection node in the center of the
intersection), because for u-turns the situation is different than for
turns, as I have tried to explain. If you tag it on a node, the router
could still suggest a u-turn 1mm before or after this intersection node.
Additionally, at crossings there are often no carriageway markings (could
be country specific).

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

[Tagging] intelligence services

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Following a short discussion on talk-de, I am asking for your comments
regarding the tagging of intelligence service sites.

Currently in Germany, these seem to be tagged as
landuse=military plus name, operator and alt_name tags.

example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239950443


There are military intelligence services, and for those this tagging would
be ok, but in this case it is not a military service, hence the tagging
should be improved.

My suggestion for the institution is
amenity=intelligence_service (and name, operator etc. tags)

The nature of these places is secrecy, but from time to time some details
come to light and could be added, e.g. sub-tags for the kind of site (e.g.
formation, surveillance, data archive, command, or whatever you think is
useful).

In case it is a military site, the military tags would be added, obviously

for the landuse:
landuse=civic_admin or institutional

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

Re: [Tagging] intelligence services

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-06 9:59 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> My suggestion for the institution is
> amenity=intelligence_service (and name, operator etc. tags)
>
> The nature of these places is secrecy, but from time to time some details
> come to light and could be added, e.g. sub-tags for the kind of site (e.g.
> formation, surveillance, data archive, command, or whatever you think is
> useful).
>


maybe
  amenity=intelligence_facility
is a better tag.

I have set up a draft:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Intelligence

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

Re: [Tagging] intelligence services

[Colin Smale]

I am not sure they will appreciate being so easy to locate. Imagine
someone printing up a poster-size map of Europe with big pushpins on the
intelligence service installations! 

It reminds me of this:

http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz216/poodlejumpy/secret_bunker_zpsc3bcd1a1.jpg


That is of course for a defunct installation that is now a tourist
attraction. 

//colin 

On 2016-09-06 11:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2016-09-06 9:59 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 
>> My suggestion for the institution is 
>> amenity=intelligence_service (and name, operator etc. tags)
>> 
>> The nature of these places is secrecy, but from time to time some details 
>> come to light and could be added, e.g. sub-tags for the kind of site (e.g. 
>> formation, surveillance, data archive, command, or whatever you think is 
>> useful).
> 
> maybe 
> amenity=intelligence_facility 
> is a better tag.
> 
> I have set up a draft:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Intelligence
> 
> 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] cave_entrance. ref and name

[Janko Mihelić]

What about renderers? Should they render name or cave:name? If a small cave
has only one entrance, is it right to name that entrance by the name of the
cave? It's probably going to be used that way.

We should tell Nominatim to start indexing cave:name tags.

Janko

uto, 6. ruj 2016. u 09:47 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
> 2016-09-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that
>> "name" on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?
>>
>
>
> Thank you all for your contributions, I have now modified the cave
> entrance page accordingly to make clear that this is the entrance object,
> i.e.
> name should be the name of the entrance
> cave:name of the cave it leads to
> ref should be the ref of the entrance (if any), alternatively ref:=*
> where org is the issuer/maintainer of the ref
> cave:ref for the ref of the cave it leads to.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance#Tagging
>
> 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] intelligence services

[John Willis]

Japan had huge protests and civil unrest when they appropriated land for the 
international airport in Narita - there are still houses in the middle of the 
taxiways today.  People broke into the airport and destroyed the tower 
equipment, hoping to delay the opening of the airport. 

They created huge police facilities (and a jail on the airport grounds), and 
while there are no longer any protests 30 years later, Japan still keeps a very 
very heavy (largely unneeded) police presence in the area and is the only 
airport in Japan with road checkpoints and "secret" facilities that don't show 
up almost any modern map or common records. Googling the name gave very little 
information. 

I mapped one of them, an active police barracks and staging grounds just 
outside the airport grounds. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/35.74489/140.37978

I mention this because, while it is not an intelligence service, it is a 
"secret" location. There are no signs. It is not mapped in the domestic mapping 
programs. It is not clandestine, but its presence (and name) is concealed. The 
workers may be police guards doing mundane things like car checks or patrolling 
outside the airport grounds, but the facility is "secret"

Perhaps there are other facilities - civilian, military, police, or 
intelligence based things that are obfuscated. Perhaps tagging that is useful. 
We all know where NSA HQ is - but is is not actively being obfuscated in 
mapping data. 

=Intelligence service is a good tag to have, but that doesn't mean it is an 
obfuscated location. maybe that needs a more flexible tag. 

Javbw



> On Sep 6, 2016, at 7:05 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> I am not sure they will appreciate being so easy to locate

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

Re: [Tagging] intelligence services

[Andy Mabbett]

On 6 September 2016 at 11:05, Colin Smale  wrote:

> I am not sure they will appreciate being so easy to locate. Imagine someone
> printing up a poster-size map of Europe with big pushpins on the
> intelligence service installations!

Good luck to them, then:

   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station#Controversy_over_French-language_version_of_Wikipedia_article


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

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Santiago Díaz de Argandoña]

Page on OSMWiki

.
Some mountains have a "mailbox" at the summit. When mountaineers reach it,
they may leave a card where they write down their contact data, weather,
date of the hike... Then, the next mountaineers who reach the summit pick
the card in order to give it back to the owner (sending it via mail, for
example).

I think mountaineer's mailboxes aren't extended into English-speaking
countries, so if there's a more appropriate term for them, feel free to
move the proposal page (I took the name from the Wikimedia Commons category
) .
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Andy Mabbett]

On 6 September 2016 at 16:04, Santiago Díaz de Argandoña
 wrote:

> Some mountains have a "mailbox" at the summit. When mountaineers reach it,
> they may leave a card where they write down their contact data, weather,
> date of the hike... Then, the next mountaineers who reach the summit pick
> the card in order to give it back to the owner (sending it via mail, for
> example).

This sounds very similar to geocaching.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Kevin Kenny]

I'm a mountaineer in one of those English-speaking countries that you
mention, and I've certainly encountered the practice, which varies from
having a climber's log ('register' is another keyword) at the summit, to a
'letterbox' such as you describe, to a 'geocache' where people leave
trinkets. All of those are key words that might yield fruitful results in
searching for practice in English-speaking countries.

Traditional summit registers could indeed be included. Including other
geocaches is somewhat controversial:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geocaching addresses that issue.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/register discusses the
more traditional letterboxes and summit registers, and appears to be an
abandoned proposal.

I'm not an active geocacher, but I sign the register when I happen to visit
a peak that has one. Sometimes it is to record a physical challenge met, or
simply to tell potential rescuers that I passed that way. At other times it
has deep personal meaning, as with
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/15077523584. [1] In the case of that
particular register, the club asks that we refrain from sharing exact
coordinates far and wide, because searching for the canisters is part of
the sport. There is no established trail on that particular peak.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/15673754056/ shows what a canister
looks like when you find and open it.

There are, of course, places other than peaks where tourism=register
 would make
sense.

One thing that caused the 'register' proposal to stumble is that people
confused several different things:

   - a voluntary guestbook for people to record "I was here" and perhaps
   ask for more information
   - a mandatory registration for trail users (usually for safety)
   - a checkpoint on an orienteering course
   - a geocache, which for the reasons stated on the 'Geocaching' page is
   probably not a good candidate for OSM.

The discussion, as I recall, got quite confused, because nobody seemed to
have the same sort of thing in mind.

I would think that the proposal could be adapted to the thing that you
describe: 'tourism=register register:type=letterbox' or some such tagging.
What do you think?

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin


[1] My stepfather was quite touched. I don't believe that anyone from the
family climbed that mountain in the seventy-four years between the time
that he lost his father and the time I climbed it. It was high time that
his name was graven somewhere near his presumed resting place.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Santiago Díaz de Argandoña <
santiago06d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Page on OSMWiki
> 
> .
> Some mountains have a "mailbox" at the summit. When mountaineers reach it,
> they may leave a card where they write down their contact data, weather,
> date of the hike... Then, the next mountaineers who reach the summit pick
> the card in order to give it back to the owner (sending it via mail, for
> example).
>
> I think mountaineer's mailboxes aren't extended into English-speaking
> countries, so if there's a more appropriate term for them, feel free to
> move the proposal page (I took the name from the Wikimedia Commons
> category ) .
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[ksg]

> Am 06.09.2016 um 19:55 schrieb Kevin Kenny :
> 
> I would think that the proposal could be adapted to the thing that you 
> describe: 'tourism=register register:type=letterbox' or some such tagging. 
> What do you think?
> 


The tag summit:register=* is not yet defined in the wiki, but is widespread 
used in the Alps of Europe with > 600 instances.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/summit%3Aregister#values

geow


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

Re: [Tagging] Water in bays, harbors, etc.

[Kevin Kenny]

I'll be following this discussion with interest, because I suspect that a
good many mappers have the same approach that I do in estuarine areas:
"don't mess with the coastline, you're too likely to break something."

My understanding is that the coastline is *supposed* to follow the
high-water line of the mean spring tide of a 19-year Metonic cycle. In the
field, though, what I see mapped is something closer to mean daily high
water, or even lower, because otherwise most of the renderers would place
the entire foreshore under water. Moreover, the coastline often seems to
follow the barrier islands, with the back bays, estuaries, and other
waterways not accounted as part of the ocean, even if the water is salt.
There will always be confusion in that area. It would surely be wrong to
label the Hudson River as merely an arm of the Atlantic Ocean, even if the
water is brackish for fifty kilometers or more upriver, and the tide is
measurable for another hundred km beyond that, so there has to be some room
for judgment.

If the natural=coastline followed the mean high water of the Metonic cycle,
as documented in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline,
many of the residential areas in a waterfront community like my native area
of http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/40.6160/-73.7555 [1] would render
as being underwater - they routinely have water in the streets for an hour
or two at the spring tide, particularly if the wind is offshore.
Technically, they are indeed 'outside' the coastline, but practically, that
description does not make sense. All the buildings are on piers, typically
a couple of metres above grade, and people don't think of themselves as
living under water. They just keep an almanac close at hand to know when
the road will be flooded.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

[1] People often ask, "why would people build in an area that's so very
subject to flooding?" The answer is simple: "because it's hard to put a
seaport anywhere but on the ocean."  And now I see that I have another
thing on my ever-growing list of projects. I see a couple of streets on the
map there that have been abandoned since the hurricane of 1960 and have
been underwater since the 1970s at the very least. They are no doubt 'TIGER
turds.'

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> During a day kayaking I noticed that the OSM map in the area was less than
> perfect so I thought I’d see what I could do to improve it. But I have not
> worked on this type of feature very much and am a little uncertain of some
> tagging details.
>
> The area is a “back bay”, a tidal area with some channels and tidal
> wetlands a bit inland from a developed small boat harbor. In this area the
> land/water boundary has been tagged with “natural=coastline”[1]. When
> looking at other similar areas I’ve been to, it seems that the
> “natural=coastline” is not taken as far inland and the harbor and estuary
> areas are tagged with "natural=water”[2]. I am wondering which is the
> preferred method of tagging.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/33.6201/-117.8968
> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.8100/-121.7859
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Kevin Kenny]

OK, that sounds good as well. Maybe still have some sort of tagging for the
type so that we can show a letterbox as Mr Díaz de Argandoña requests?

(As I said earlier, I'm unlikely to tag such a beast, because the clubs
where I climb request that climbers not share coordinates of the registers
or GPS tracks of the routes on the peaks without established trails.)

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:20 PM, ksg  wrote:

>
> > Am 06.09.2016 um 19:55 schrieb Kevin Kenny  >:
> >
> > I would think that the proposal could be adapted to the thing that you
> describe: 'tourism=register register:type=letterbox' or some such tagging.
> What do you think?
> >
>
>
> The tag summit:register=* is not yet defined in the wiki, but is
> widespread used in the Alps of Europe with > 600 instances.
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/summit%3Aregister#values
>
> geow
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[ksg]

> Am 06.09.2016 um 20:38 schrieb Kevin Kenny :
> 
> OK, that sounds good as well. Maybe still have some sort of tagging for the 
> type so that we can show a letterbox as Mr Díaz de Argandoña requests?

Perfect, may be like "summit:register:letterbox=yes“? 

> (As I said earlier, I'm unlikely to tag such a beast, because the clubs where 
> I climb request that climbers not share coordinates of the registers or GPS 
> tracks of the routes on the peaks without established trails.)

In the Alps summit registers in terms of 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_register are not uncommon even on 
„insignificant“ peaks.

geow



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Anders Fougner]

Den 06.09.2016 20.56, skrev ksg:

Am 06.09.2016 um 20:38 schrieb Kevin Kenny :

OK, that sounds good as well. Maybe still have some sort of tagging for the 
type so that we can show a letterbox as Mr Díaz de Argandoña requests?

Perfect, may be like "summit:register:letterbox=yes“?


(As I said earlier, I'm unlikely to tag such a beast, because the clubs where I 
climb request that climbers not share coordinates of the registers or GPS 
tracks of the routes on the peaks without established trails.)

In the Alps summit registers in terms of 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_register are not uncommon even on 
„insignificant“ peaks.

geow

These are also common on all sorts of peaks in my country (Norway). From 
small hills in the forest (usually near the cities) to the steepest 
peaks you would have to be a rock climber to reach.
Sometimes it's not even on a peak or a hill, just in a trail crossing or 
something like that. The term "summit register" doesn't really fit for 
those, but otherwise they look the same and are there for approximately 
the same reasons, I believe...


Anders

Anders

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

Re: [Tagging] Water in bays, harbors, etc.

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 06 September 2016, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I'll be following this discussion with interest, because I suspect
> that a good many mappers have the same approach that I do in
> estuarine areas: "don't mess with the coastline, you're too likely to
> break something."

Note this is acutally not something you have to fear much, at least when 
you edit with JOSM.  When the coastline is not updated this is usually 
either:

- a beginner editing who has never heard about the special problems of 
coastline mapping in OSM.
- deliberate, technically correct edits that are large enough to trigger 
the error detection heuristics. 
- unqualified imports.

In other words: if you are aware of the problem you are unlikely to 
create a formal error while doing normal editing of the coastline even 
if you don't shy away from coastline edits.

> Moreover, the 
> coastline often seems to follow the barrier islands, with the back
> bays, estuaries, and other waterways not accounted as part of the
> ocean, even if the water is salt. There will always be confusion in
> that area. It would surely be wrong to label the Hudson River as
> merely an arm of the Atlantic Ocean, even if the water is brackish
> for fifty kilometers or more upriver, and the tide is measurable for
> another hundred km beyond that, so there has to be some room for
> judgment.

For river mouths there is a proposal suggesting rough limits:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement

This more or less represents the practical mapping consensus - there are 
only a handful of larger rivers worldwide that do not comply with the 
limits suggested there.

There are a number of places where people have started mapping 
significant parts of coastal waters as polygons like here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5405670
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3801633

but this is not widely accepted and will cause problems for data users.

By the way you do not usually have to be that nit-picky about the exact 
definition of the water level.  Targeting the average high water line 
during the normal daily tidal cycle is usually close enough and as you 
already mentioned much better than current practice in many cases.  
Note spring tide level specifically does not mean storm water levels.  
So areas subject to storm flooding are not outside the coastline.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Kevin Kenny]

And once again the confusion begins...

There are indeed hiker registers (and, for that matter, other guestbooks)
at many locations other than summits. Sometimes they're optional "I was
here" guestbooks. Sometimes they're "please register, because our funding
depends on showing that we are supporting a large number of visitors."
Sometimes they're even carbon-paper forms "you must register, and carry
proof that you did, so that search and rescue workers will know who's in
there." And all of these tend to get conflated with geocaches, and
letterboxes, and $LC_DEITY alone knows what else. I've seen this discussion
rise and fall at least once before, without any consensus being reached
because different people imagined tagging a different set of objects.

It's not clear for me that a letterbox for depositing your registration
card (or housing the guestbook) like
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/16998968697/ is the same sort of thing
as a summit register like https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14713754302 .
On the other hand, it's not clear that they aren't the same sort of thing:
a place that you're expected to write your name to indicate your presence.

The last time this discussion was raised, it even veered off into guest
books in churches and museums, which summit:register surely would not
cover. I don't think we'll make progress unless we make it clear what the
intended scope is.

For what it's worth, I have an interest in adding and tagging the stations
where hiker registration is either mandatory or else strongly recommended.
Most of the ones in my part of the world are boxes, often at trailhead
kiosks, containing books like
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041151285/. But that is quite
possibly a different thing from a summit register and should perhaps be a
different proposal. Another type of trail register that's common around
here is a register at a lean-to (a three-sided structure meant for campers
to sleep in, like https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14279291625/). That's
one that I've not tried to tag explicitly, since it would be somewhat
surprising to find a lean-to without a register book.  BUT NEITHER OF THESE
IS A SUMMIT REGISTER, and we need to make it clear just how much of the
ocean we're trying to boil.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Anders Fougner 
wrote:

> Den 06.09.2016 20.56, skrev ksg:
>
>> Am 06.09.2016 um 20:38 schrieb Kevin Kenny :
>>>
>>> OK, that sounds good as well. Maybe still have some sort of tagging for
>>> the type so that we can show a letterbox as Mr Díaz de Argandoña requests?
>>>
>> Perfect, may be like "summit:register:letterbox=yes“?
>>
>> (As I said earlier, I'm unlikely to tag such a beast, because the clubs
>>> where I climb request that climbers not share coordinates of the registers
>>> or GPS tracks of the routes on the peaks without established trails.)
>>>
>> In the Alps summit registers in terms of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Summit_register are not uncommon even on „insignificant“ peaks.
>>
>> geow
>>
>> These are also common on all sorts of peaks in my country (Norway). From
> small hills in the forest (usually near the cities) to the steepest peaks
> you would have to be a rock climber to reach.
> Sometimes it's not even on a peak or a hill, just in a trail crossing or
> something like that. The term "summit register" doesn't really fit for
> those, but otherwise they look the same and are there for approximately the
> same reasons, I believe...
>
> Anders
>
> Anders
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Dudley Ibbett]

In the UK "Letterboxing" has been a practice on Dartmoor for quite a few years. 
  

http://www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk/lett_box.htm

As suggested it isn't a common practice when it comes to summits in the UK.

Regards

Dudley

From: santiago06d...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:04:43 +0200
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

Page on OSMWiki.
Some mountains have a "mailbox" at the summit. When mountaineers reach it, they 
may leave a card where they write down their contact data, weather, date of the 
hike... Then, the next mountaineers who reach the summit pick the card in order 
to give it back to the owner (sending it via mail, for example).

I think mountaineer's mailboxes aren't extended into English-speaking 
countries, so if there's a more appropriate term for them, feel free to move 
the proposal page (I took the name from the Wikimedia Commons category) .


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Wolfgang Zenker]

Hi,

* Kevin Kenny  [160906 20:38]:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:20 PM, ksg  wrote:
>> The tag summit:register=* is not yet defined in the wiki, but is
>> widespread used in the Alps of Europe with > 600 instances.

>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/summit%3Aregister#values

> OK, that sounds good as well. Maybe still have some sort of tagging for the
> type so that we can show a letterbox as Mr Díaz de Argandoña requests?

> (As I said earlier, I'm unlikely to tag such a beast, because the clubs
> where I climb request that climbers not share coordinates of the registers
> or GPS tracks of the routes on the peaks without established trails.)

just to complicate things a bit further: I have seen some registers of
the "I was here" type inside caves, placed there to get an idea how many
people reach that particular part of the cave. summit:register would sound
a bit silly for those.

Wolfgang

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[ksg]

> Am 06.09.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> * Kevin Kenny  [160906 20:38]:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:20 PM, ksg  wrote:
>>> The tag summit:register=* is not yet defined in the wiki, but is
>>> widespread used in the Alps of Europe with > 600 instances.
> 
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/summit%3Aregister#values
> 
>> OK, that sounds good as well. Maybe still have some sort of tagging for the
>> type so that we can show a letterbox as Mr Díaz de Argandoña requests?
> 
>> (As I said earlier, I'm unlikely to tag such a beast, because the clubs
>> where I climb request that climbers not share coordinates of the registers
>> or GPS tracks of the routes on the peaks without established trails.)
> 
> just to complicate things a bit further: I have seen some registers of
> the "I was here" type inside caves, placed there to get an idea how many
> people reach that particular part of the cave. summit:register would sound
> a bit silly for those.


Hmm, the topic of Santiago Díaz de Argandoña refers to  mailboxes at summits. 
And in these cases summit:register:letterbox=yes might be appropriate.

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

Re: [Tagging] Water in bays, harbors, etc.

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Christoph Hormann 
wrote:

> In other words: if you are aware of the problem you are unlikely to
> create a formal error while doing normal editing of the coastline even
> if you don't shy away from coastline edits.
>

I've actually learnt that, and even repaired the coastline a time or two. I
exaggerated when I said, 'stay away from the coastline,' it's more 'if you
get started editing the coastline, expect to spend an unpredictable amount
of time repairing the topology before JOSM will shut up about it..' (Which
is most likely a good thing, but it's annoying when it happens. Usually, it
means that I'm tidying someone else's mess.)


> For river mouths there is a proposal suggesting rough limits:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/
> Coastline-River_transit_placement
>
> This more or less represents the practical mapping consensus - there are
> only a handful of larger rivers worldwide that do not comply with the
> limits suggested there.
>

The Hudson River is one of them, but the locals would be somewhat
astonished if the "seacoast" extended as far as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/41.3070/-73.9655 (the typical location
of the salt front in conditions of normal flow, and a typical place above
which the river current begins to predominate), to say nothing of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/42.7518/-73.6875 (the dam that is the
tidal limit). For what it's worth, NHD classifies that entire reach as
'estuary', which has caused rendering problems for CalTopo and TopOSM,
among others. The locals know it as the "Hudson River" all the way down to
the southern tip of Manhattan and do not think of it as an arm of the sea,
geology be damned.


> There are a number of places where people have started mapping
> significant parts of coastal waters as polygons like here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5405670
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3801633
>
> but this is not widely accepted and will cause problems for data users.
>

Indeed. Where I've edited, I've tried to follow local practice and make the
foreshore the multipolygon, rather than having water polygons.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4611285 is an example. (Note that
others created that particular relation; I modified it only because I
needed to reuse shoreline as the boundary of a state park. It got rather
nasty because someone ahead of me had done a forced repair to make the
coastline continuous and had broken the foreshore multipolygon in the
process. Drive-by mapping at its finest - but forgivable, because a broken
coastline is a continent-level emergency while unclosed ways in foreshore
polygons are local problems.)


> By the way you do not usually have to be that nit-picky about the exact
> definition of the water level.  Targeting the average high water line
> during the normal daily tidal cycle is usually close enough and as you
> already mentioned much better than current practice in many cases.
> Note spring tide level specifically does not mean storm water levels.
> So areas subject to storm flooding are not outside the coastline.
>

Right. I'm talking about neighbourhoods like
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-CQ681_MNYBLO_P_20131024232207.jpg
where the houses are built well above the ground on piers, and the streets
may well be awash at the new and full Moon even in good weather,
particularly if the wind is offshore. That house with the turret has a
stairway of ten or twelve steps going up to its front porch. You can see
the pilings under the house with the flagpole. (When I was growing up, it
hardly occurred to me that people in other places never needed to put on
high rubber boots to cross the street, or that raking flotsam out of the
front yard wasn't a routine chore for most!)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cave_entrance. ref and name

[ksg]

> Am 06.09.2016 um 09:44 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 
> 2016-09-03 14:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> Are there any objections to make clear on the cave entrance page that "name" 
> on a cave entrance object is the name of the cave entrance?
> 
> 
> Thank you all for your contributions,

Sorry I know I’m late, but was there any positive feedback?

> I have now modified the cave entrance page accordingly to make clear that 
> this is the entrance object, i.e.
> name should be the name of the entrance
> cave:name of the cave it leads to

I understand your intention to remove the inconsistent semantics in cave:ref vs 
name. But redefining a name tag that is already widespread used (22k objects) 
is tricky. I would suspect that many cave entrances have no specific names, 
particularly small caves with just one access. 

So we should propose that cave:name is rendered in OSM-carto and considered in 
Nominatim. And somehow we have to re-tag the old „name" to „cave:name“ in an 
automated edit - dangerous ground ;)
  
> ref should be the ref of the entrance (if any), alternatively ref:=* 
> where org is the issuer/maintainer of the ref
> cave:ref for the ref of the cave it leads to.

OK, fully agreed.


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