[Tagging] war_memorial

[demon.box]

hi, I would tag a war memorial for example like these:

 

 

so I choose:

historic=memorial
memorial=war_memorial

but how can I specify the kind of it (stele, plaque, ecc.)?

thanks very much.

--enrico






--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed deletion of wiki pages about motorcycle_friendly=*

[Thilo Haug]

Please describe which 'problems' you fear to appear if it's not deleted.
In case anyone would have improvement suggestions they are certainly 
appreciated.


Am Montag, 2. Oktober 2017 23:20:41 CEST schrieb marc marc 
:

Hello,

Le 02. 10. 17 à 13:21, Michael Reichert a écrit :

What are your opinions?


I totally adhere to the many problems you point out.

Regards,
Marc




--
Mit Dekko von meinem Ubuntu-Gerät gesendet

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed deletion of wiki pages about motorcycle_friendly=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-10-03 11:34 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug :

> Please describe which 'problems' you fear to appear if it's not deleted.
>


If everybody creates feature pages for his personal, low usage features,
the wiki looses it's function of documenting the generally used and
established features, as they are not identifiable any more. You already
have the proposal page, which states that this is a proposal, and documents
the tags, no need to create confusion and clutter with a feature page that
is not justified at this point.

In the discussions about this tag, there have also been various comments of
other mappers, that explained why they think that these tags are not
suitable, so it should probably considered disputed.

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

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Janko Mihelić]

I propose we deprecate memorial=war_memorial. It's in conflict with other
values of this key. We can use memorial:theme=war_memorial. We can expand
this with other values, like memorial:theme=notable_person, notable_event,
and so on.

Janko

uto, 3. lis 2017. u 11:15 demon.box  napisao je:

> hi, I would tag a war memorial for example like these:
>
> <
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/file/t339261/Monumento_ai_caduti_a_Gela.jpg
> >
>
> <
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/file/t339261/targa_caduti_piazza_martiri2.jpg
> >
>
> so I choose:
>
> historic=memorial
> memorial=war_memorial
>
> but how can I specify the kind of it (stele, plaque, ecc.)?
>
> thanks very much.
>
> --enrico
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> 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] war_memorial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-10-03 11:55 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :

> I propose we deprecate memorial=war_memorial. It's in conflict with other
> values of this key. We can use memorial:theme=war_memorial. We can expand
> this with other values, like memorial:theme=notable_person, notable_event,
> and so on.
>


+1, we should distinguish shape / material appearance from the topic, the
style, the period, etc.
Not only here, but generally. "type" or "thing_type" or A=B, B=C does
generally not work very well, because there are mostly different
possibilities to categorize / group things into a typology, and if the
"kind of typology" is not specified in the key, it tends to end up with
orthogonal properties.

I'm fine with "memorial:theme", but would like to mention also
"commemorates" (maybe this could be more specific, e.g. "World War II"
etc.) as can be seen here:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/commemorates#values
There also a "topic" key in small use:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/topic#values maybe rather than theme
it could be "memorial:topic=war"?

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed deletion of wiki pages about motorcycle_friendly=*

[marc marc]

Le 03. 10. 17 à 11:52, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> 
> 
> 2017-10-03 11:34 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug mailto:th...@gmx.de>>:
> 
> Please describe which 'problems' you fear to appear if it's not deleted.
> 
> If everybody creates feature pages for his personal, low usage features, 
> the wiki looses it's function of documenting the generally used and 
> established features, as they are not identifiable any more. You already 
> have the proposal page, which states that this is a proposal, and 
> documents the tags, no need to create confusion and clutter with a 
> feature page that is not justified at this point.
> 
> In the discussions about this tag, there have also been various comments 
> of other mappers, that explained why they think that these tags are not 
> suitable, so it should probably considered disputed.

+1

and more, if you delete the banners that warn the problem, it is clearly 
an intention to mislead people and / or manipulate the result of the 
invalid vote of the proposal, which in my opinion alone justifies a 
radical clarification to make the difference between "a mapper creates a 
lot of tag for its use" and "a validated proposal which allows to 
"guarantee" a research of quality and opinion predominantly positive"

take a look at its history of massive new tag creation while the 
majority are current proposals
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Rtfm&namespace=&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&year=2017&month=-1

it is obviously how he work to add tags he want in "in use",
it is problematic

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

[Ilya Zverev]

Hi,

I have elaborated on my thoughts on the correct ordering of key parts:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Zverik/diary/42430

You can invert your arguments and still be right: "wikipedia:brand is the 
wikipedia link for the brand, hence it is the right order, the same as with 
ref:brand : the reference number for the brand".

Ilya

Marc:
> brand:wikipedia: the wikipedia is related to the brand.
> it is the wikipedia link about the brand,
> so brand:wikipedia is the right order.
> the same as with name:en : the english version of the name.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed deletion of wiki pages about motorcycle_friendly=*

[Thilo Haug OSM]

You're talking about things like this ?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dinsect_hotel

Have those all been discussed ?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Object_Usage

When is it "low usage" ?
And how should usage appear (in a structured way),
if it's not documented ?
There's also low usage on those
(as there aren't many yet)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dspaceport
There was a bunch of different values before,
as everybody mapped it the way he/her thought it might be right.

I didn't understand how those (motorcycle) tags might cause others to be
"not identifiable any more".

There weren't "various comments of other mappers",
there were mainly various comments by Warin61 :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendly


Am 03.10.2017 um 11:52 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>
> 2017-10-03 11:34 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug  >:
>
> Please describe which 'problems' you fear to appear if it's not
> deleted.
>
>
>
> If everybody creates feature pages for his personal, low usage
> features, the wiki looses it's function of documenting the generally
> used and established features, as they are not identifiable any more.
> You already have the proposal page, which states that this is a
> proposal, and documents the tags, no need to create confusion and
> clutter with a feature page that is not justified at this point.
>
> In the discussions about this tag, there have also been various
> comments of other mappers, that explained why they think that these
> tags are not suitable, so it should probably considered disputed.
>
> 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] Proposed deletion of wiki pages about motorcycle_friendly=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-10-03 12:32 GMT+02:00 marc marc :

> and more, if you delete the banners that warn the problem, it is clearly
> an intention to mislead people and / or manipulate the result of the
> invalid vote of the proposal, which in my opinion alone justifies a
> radical clarification to make the difference between "a mapper creates a
> lot of tag for its use" and "a validated proposal which allows to
> "guarantee" a research of quality and opinion predominantly positive"
>
>

+1




> take a look at its history of massive new tag creation while the
> majority are current proposals
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?limit=500&;
> title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Rtfm&
> namespace=&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&year=2017&month=-1
>


this reveals indeed some problematic edits. E.g.  a new key page for
surfing:shoes was created 2 weeks ago and still there isn't even a single
instance of this tag in the db.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed deletion of wiki pages about motorcycle_friendly=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-10-03 16:02 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug OSM :

> You're talking about things like this ?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dinsect_hotel
>
>

I don't see an issue with this, it has 105 instances tagged and
documentation in several languages. I'm not very interested in the topic,
but apparently, a group of people is.



> Have those all been discussed ?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Object_Usage
>


the seamark chapter is also somehow problematic (for me mainly because they
are using this seamark prefix for everything sea-related, be it a seamark
or not).
But there is an active community behind this effort, for a long time, so
they have some kind of "historic" bonus. There is also a whole ecosystem
around this, with dedicated editors, maps, apps, etc.


> When is it "low usage" ?
>


it depends on numbers both in OSM and in the real world. Something rare
will never be tagged in the millions, but a tag for a waste basket that
would be in use just a few thousand times would be "low usage".



> And how should usage appear (in a structured way),
> if it's not documented ?
>

by promoting the tag and by documenting it with a "proposal". The way tags
are invented is either by usage or by documenting it via a proposal.



> I didn't understand how those (motorcycle) tags might cause others to be...
>


The main problem with the "motorcycle friendly" tagging is that it is not
verifiable in general. It might be verifiable in exceptional cases, but
this kind of tag leads easily to subjective tagging in a rating and review
style, rather than "facts". If there is room for something like this, you
'd have to be super cautious in order to warn people to apply this only
when verifiable. It was suggested you'd rather tag individual properties
like the availability of motorcycle parking, a drying room, etc., which
objectively describe available features, and which could help ideally
everybody, not only motorcyclists, e.g. a drying room is not only related
to motorcyclists, but to everybody with wet clothes.

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

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Janko Mihelić]

uto, 3. lis 2017. u 12:19 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
> There also a "topic" key in small use:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/topic#values maybe rather than
> theme it could be "memorial:topic=war"?
>
>
Ok, memorial:topic=war.

Is this thread enough to deprecate war_memorial on the wiki? Or should we
first create a new wiki for memorial:topic=*?

I would also bring up the tag subject:wikidata=*, but I'm afraid the
current flames on other threads would spread here :)

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

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[José G Moya Y .]

+1.
But I wonder if memorial=war_memorial was created with a shape in mind,
that of large walls with long lists of names on it we see on american
movies.

(In Spain, collective memorials are either big plaques, statues or
obelisks. The plaques, typical of the Spanish war of 1936-39, are being
removed in fulfillment of the Historical Memory Law).

El 3/10/2017 17:16, "Janko Mihelić"  escribió:

uto, 3. lis 2017. u 12:19 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
> There also a "topic" key in small use: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.
> org/keys/topic#values maybe rather than theme it could be
> "memorial:topic=war"?
>
>
Ok, memorial:topic=war.

Is this thread enough to deprecate war_memorial on the wiki? Or should we
first create a new wiki for memorial:topic=*?

I would also bring up the tag subject:wikidata=*, but I'm afraid the
current flames on other threads would spread here :)

Janko

___
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] war_memorial

[John F. Eldredge]

On 10/3/2017 12:26 PM, José G Moya Y. wrote:

+1.
But I wonder if memorial=war_memorial was created with a shape in 
mind, that of large walls with long lists of names on it we see on 
american movies.


(In Spain, collective memorials are either big plaques, statues or 
obelisks. The plaques, typical of the Spanish war of 1936-39, are 
being removed in fulfillment of the Historical Memory Law).


El 3/10/2017 17:16, "Janko Mihelić" > escribió:


uto, 3. lis 2017. u 12:19 Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> napisao je:


There also a "topic" key in small use:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/topic#values
 maybe
rather than theme it could be "memorial:topic=war"?


Ok, memorial:topic=war.

Is this thread enough to deprecate war_memorial on the wiki? Or
should we first create a new wiki for memorial:topic=*?

I would also bring up the tag subject:wikidata=*, but I'm afraid
the current flames on other threads would spread here :)

Janko

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





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


These other physical types of war memorials (plaques, statues, obelisks) 
are more common in the US than the walls with long lists of names. The 
Vietnam War Memorial is the first one in US history, to my knowledge, to 
list all of the American casualties.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out 
hate; only love can do that." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



---
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] war_memorial

[Bill Ricker]

> The Vietnam War Memorial is the first one in US history, to my knowledge,
to list all of the American casualties.
​
​Depending on domain of "all" ... it's the only national "all", but not the
first to list all for a smaller demographic unit than nation.

Harvard U's Memorial Hall lists all alumni who fell in the Union army,
sorted by Class year, on interior hall walls.​

Even some small town memorials ​attempted to list sons lost in Civil War,
Spanish American war, or WW1.

Even a larger town like Norwalk CT  lists all its WW1 fallen on 7 panels
below a piece of heavy artillery.
http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/Lourde/155Mle1877Norwalk1.jpg
  c/o
http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/Lourde/FC155Lm1877Norwalk.html

​We don't seem to have that monument on OSM.  If we agree on how to tag
these, I could add it, as i've been there and taken my own pictures and
waypoint.
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.11840&lon=-73.40806

Amusing, I found a history of how the monument and gun were once together,
then separated, each relocated separately, and finally re-united:
http://ctmonuments.net/2009/03/world-war-monument-norwalk/​
​
​(They are reunited now, at East & Park, in the Norwalk Green southern
apex.)​
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[José G Moya Y .]

Ok, so you agree in reserving  war_memorial for war memorials that do not
fit into plaque, statue and other "shape" categories?

El 3/10/2017 21:08, "Bill Ricker"  escribió:

> The Vietnam War Memorial is the first one in US history, to my knowledge,
to list all of the American casualties.
​
​Depending on domain of "all" ... it's the only national "all", but not the
first to list all for a smaller demographic unit than nation.

Harvard U's Memorial Hall lists all alumni who fell in the Union army,
sorted by Class year, on interior hall walls.​

Even some small town memorials ​attempted to list sons lost in Civil War,
Spanish American war, or WW1.

Even a larger town like Norwalk CT  lists all its WW1 fallen on 7 panels
below a piece of heavy artillery.
http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/
Lourde/155Mle1877Norwalk1.jpg
  c/o http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/
Lourde/FC155Lm1877Norwalk.html

​We don't seem to have that monument on OSM.  If we agree on how to tag
these, I could add it, as i've been there and taken my own pictures and
waypoint.
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.11840&lon=-73.40806

Amusing, I found a history of how the monument and gun were once together,
then separated, each relocated separately, and finally re-united:
http://ctmonuments.net/2009/03/world-war-monument-norwalk/​
​
​(They are reunited now, at East & Park, in the Norwalk Green southern
apex.)​

___
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] war_memorial

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM, José G Moya Y.  wrote:

> Ok, so you agree in reserving  war_memorial for war memorials that do not
> fit into plaque, statue and other "shape" categories?
>

​I wasn't taking a position specifically.

Since asked...

>From my point of view it's possible to be a war_memorial *and* a plaque, or
to be a war_memorial *and* a statue.  Having *:type=war-memorial attribute
for plaque and statue and whatever, and a separate war_memorial= tag for
display of obsolete donated ordnance or parts of ships with memorial
plaques does not make searching for any war-memorial near me easy. I can
include/exclude war statues from a statue search, but not search for any
type of war memorial.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

[Kevin Kenny]

I'm just wondering how best to tag to clarify a situation that I've
encountered twice now.

If you look at the Indian Ladder and Escarpment trails on
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/42.6529/-74.0150 you'll see that
there are several points where they nearly cross. Actually, at a
couple of those points, they do cross - at an elevation difference of
about 40 metres, as the Indian Ladder trail passes under an
overhanging cliff.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/34047784
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/34048525
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/6235914435

Understandably, GPS is pretty wonky down there, so the trail in OSM is
a combination of GPS tracks and pure guesswork. (I'm not in a position
to get down there with transit, sighting rod, and chains, which would
be the only way to do it right.)

There's a similar situation with an overhanging cliff on the west
slope of Sugarloaf Mountain here
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/42.1316/-74.1525
The trail down from the summit swings north, drops down a rock chimney
under some wedged boulders, and then turns back beneath an overhang
for about 60 m. Here, I've copied and pasted a (simplified) GPS track
that I don't really trust - I know it's wrong under the overhang. But
I don't even have a good source for guesswork. The available aerial
imagery, such as https://binged.it/2hNh8Mc , all has bad stitching and
warping artifacts owing to the complex topography, and for the most
part has the relevant area in deep shadow where I can see nearly
nothing. Even the wonky GPS signal is better than what I see on Bing,
Mapbox and such.

In any case, my question is: is there particular tagging that I should
be using where ways cross because of natural topography?
'covered=yes'? Something else?

Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 03. 10. 17 à 21:46, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
> is there particular tagging that I should
> be using where ways cross because of natural topography?
> 'covered=yes'? Something else?

you can/should put layer to parts of ways that don't cross

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

Re: [Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

[Warin]

On 04-Oct-17 07:39 AM, marc marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 03. 10. 17 à 21:46, Kevin Kenny a écrit :

is there particular tagging that I should
be using where ways cross because of natural topography?
'covered=yes'? Something else?

you can/should put layer to parts of ways that don't cross



Nominally layer=0 is 'ground level'. In these situations the 'ground level' 
folds back on itself - so both 'layers' are nominally 0.

I have a similar situation and have simply used covered=yes.
As there are no other paths that cross there is no conflict for my situation.
The cliff line crosses the path .. but that should cause no problem (rendering, 
routing or?)?



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

Re: [Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04-Oct-17 07:39 AM, marc marc wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 03. 10. 17 à 21:46, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
>>>
>>> is there particular tagging that I should
>>> be using where ways cross because of natural topography?
>>> 'covered=yes'? Something else?
>>
>> you can/should put layer to parts of ways that don't cross
>
>
>
> Nominally layer=0 is 'ground level'. In these situations the 'ground level'
> folds back on itself - so both 'layers' are nominally 0.
>
> I have a similar situation and have simply used covered=yes.
> As there are no other paths that cross there is no conflict for my
> situation.
> The cliff line crosses the path .. but that should cause no problem
> (rendering, routing or?)?

OK, yeah, I forgot 'layer' - and I think I'd use the rule, if you look up to
the zenith and see rock, you're at a layer less than zero.

And, yeah, 'natural=cliff' is on the "to do" list. I've only recently
started adding those, since when I render my own maps, I use
contour lines from NED. ("Cliff" is still nice to have, since
topographic features lurk in between the contours.)

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

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Question on memorials v monuments thanks.

How about a memorial arboretum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum), a
commemorative planted grove of trees that you can walk through & sit under?

Does that count as a monument, or is it a memorial?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

[Bill Ricker]

> > Nominally layer=0 is 'ground level'. In these situations the 'ground
> level'
>
> folds back on itself - so both 'layers' are nominally 0.
>

​I think Kevin has adequately refuted that:
​

> OK, yeah, I forgot 'layer' - and I think I'd use the rule, if you look up
> to
> the zenith and see rock, you're at a layer less than zero.
>

​Hmm. I like that.
Yes, level=-1 for the lower level trail sounds better than level=+1 for the
upper here, unlike artificially elevated ways.

(reminds me of arcsine, catastrophe theory, and other math funtions of
multiple sheets.:-)
​
This obviously doesn't qualify as a tunnel since the ?north? side is open
to air; nor is it a cave, quite.  Do we have a way attribute or area
attribute for  undercut/overhang area ?

And, yeah, 'natural=cliff' is on the "to do" list. I've only recently
> started adding those, since when I render my own maps, I use
> contour lines from NED. ("Cliff" is still nice to have, since
> topographic features lurk in between the contours.)
>

​​Yes please.
The contours in Cycle Map rendering do not suggest a cliff in your original
linked location,  although  name "Escarpment Trail" does hint at it. (But
all too often, a trail is named for an *endpoint* not the view on the way,
so should be at best inconclusive.  :-)
​

Re old-school transit etc - yes, packing serious surveying gear (either
antique theodolite or modern computer/laser "total station") into the
boonies requires ​packmules, grad students, or Scouts you can pay in beef
stew, as well as a qualified operator. I'm trying to recruit some of same
for an educational, non-mapping project ...
   OTOH, a non-survey "construction-grade"  100' tape measure or rolling
wheel and either an orienteering (infantry) compass or a Boonton  "pocket
transit" (engineers/geologists) compass might be adequate to measure
heading of trail at vertical occlusion, bearing and distance along trail
from a point with good GPS posit to each occlusion point, and then to
inflection node under cover and distance between, to improve your level=-1
track.
   Alternatively, you can hunker-down with a good GPS (advanced user modes)
at each angle of the occluded trail, switch to Constellation view, and wait
until the GPS constellation gets lopsided into the narrow wedge of sky you
*can* see from there and get your best posit then. Quality will still be
low due to short baseline in sky but will be better.
​   Or try both ...

-
​73​
-
Bill
​n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Question on memorials v monuments thanks.
>
> How about a memorial arboretum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum),
> a commemorative planted grove of trees that you can walk through & sit
> under?
>
> Does that count as a monument, or is it a memorial?
>

​As I read wiki.osm, both historic=memorial and historic=monument are
presumed man-made structures, with the latter reserved for that which is
truly "'monumental' in size".  Neither would apply to an Arboretum (even
though it's an unnatural landscape on monumental scale, it's not a
structure).  (FWIW, xref there includes man_made=obelisk and memorial=stele
)

It sounds like the wiki expects us to find the plaque or stele etc inside
the memorial arboretum and tag it as the historic=memorial,
memorial=plaque, etc. and only tag an area thus if the monumental structure
has outline worth outlining as closed area way.

​This memorial park  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29743732 is not an
arboretum, AFAIK, although some of the trees may have been planted trees,
it's not about the trees.  Unless I find a plaque or other marker, the wiki
is not encouraging use of either memorial or monument, although
memorial:conflict=WW1 could apply.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument
​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmemorial​

​More info on my Memorial Park area
http://fd.ema.arrl.org/SiteDetail.php?site=MemPk ​
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Warin]

On 04-Oct-17 12:00 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:



On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Question on memorials v monuments thanks.

How about a memorial arboretum
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum
), a commemorative
planted grove of trees that you can walk through & sit under?

Does that count as a monument, or is it a memorial?


​As I read wiki.osm, both historic=memorial and historic=monument are 
presumed man-made structures, with the latter reserved for that which 
is truly "'monumental' in size".  Neither would apply to an Arboretum 
(even though it's an unnatural landscape on monumental scale, it's not 
a structure).  (FWIW, xref there includes man_made=obelisk and 
memorial=stele )


It sounds like the wiki expects us to find the plaque or stele etc 
inside the memorial arboretum and tag it as the historic=memorial, 
memorial=plaque, etc. and only tag an area thus if the monumental 
structure has outline worth outlining as closed area way.


​This memorial park http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29743732 is not 
an arboretum, AFAIK, although some of the trees may have been planted 
trees, it's not about the trees.  Unless I find a plaque or other 
marker, the wiki is not encouraging use of either memorial or 
monument, although memorial:conflict=WW1 could apply.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument
​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmemorial​

​More info on my Memorial Park area 
http://fd.ema.arrl.org/SiteDetail.php?site=MemPk ​





Memorial avenues exist - roads with tress planted alongside to remember 
the dead usually from wars.

See http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=13557
No OSM taggging other than a road in OSM

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/280394066

Each tree usually commemorates one person, the tree signifies the 
victory of life over death.
While there may a be a plaque - it is the tree that forms the memorial 
for that person.

The collection of trees form a memorial to the war dead as a collective.

I have not tagged them...

Some more info? 
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/about/environment/protecting-heritage/remembrance-driveway/history/index.html


---

I think a memorial rather than a monument. But I am not pedantic about it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Bill Ricker  wrote:

> This obviously doesn't qualify as a tunnel since the ?north? side is open to
> air; nor is it a cave, quite.  Do we have a way attribute or area attribute
> for  undercut/overhang area ?

"covered=yes", I think...

>> And, yeah, 'natural=cliff' is on the "to do" list. I've only recently
>> started adding those, since when I render my own maps, I use
>> contour lines from NED. ("Cliff" is still nice to have, since
>> topographic features lurk in between the contours.)
>
>
> Yes please.
> The contours in Cycle Map rendering do not suggest a cliff in your original
> linked location,  although  name "Escarpment Trail" does hint at it. (But
> all too often, a trail is named for an *endpoint* not the view on the way,
> so should be at best inconclusive.  :-)

I've noticed that the data source for Cycle Map's contours pretty much
never shows cliffs. They seem to get interpolated away.

The USGS map https://caltopo.com/l/BUQ1 shows what's going on
if you know how to read it. If you look by Mine Lot Falls, you'll see
that some number of 20-foot contours disappear because they're
overhung, or because it's too steep to draw them.

> Re old-school transit etc - yes, packing serious surveying gear (either
> antique theodolite or modern computer/laser "total station") into the
> boonies requires packmules, grad students, or Scouts you can pay in beef
> stew, as well as a qualified operator. I'm trying to recruit some of same
> for an educational, non-mapping project ...
>OTOH, a non-survey "construction-grade"  100' tape measure or rolling
> wheel and either an orienteering (infantry) compass or a Boonton  "pocket
> transit" (engineers/geologists) compass might be adequate to measure heading
> of trail at vertical occlusion, bearing and distance along trail from a
> point with good GPS posit to each occlusion point, and then to inflection
> node under cover and distance between, to improve your level=-1  track.
>Alternatively, you can hunker-down with a good GPS (advanced user modes)
> at each angle of the occluded trail, switch to Constellation view, and wait
> until the GPS constellation gets lopsided into the narrow wedge of sky you
> *can* see from there and get your best posit then. Quality will still be low
> due to short baseline in sky but will be better.
>Or try both ...

Uhm, yeah. The GPS solution doesn't work too good, I've sat still under
Mine Lot Falls waiting, and never got a usable position. Even when there
are enough satellites in sight, the receiver gets confused by specular
reflections off the rock face. That rock is pretty smooth in L band.

I have a Brunton mirror-sighting compass, a plane table, a rod and
a tape. What I don't have is a crew. You need someone to hold the
sighting rod, someone to sight, and two guys to work the tape.
For the Ladder itself, I'd need to do division of levels, or cosine
error would kill me.

So many projects, so little time...

> 73
tnx es vy 73 to you also,
de ke9tv/2,
Kevin

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v2 Vehicle Type "coach"

[Mikolai-Alexander Gütschow]

Hi all,

I've elaborated a proposal for the route=coach tag according to the 
Public Transport Scheme v2 and as already in use in some cases.


See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v2_Vehicle_Type_%22coach%22


The proposal adds the possibility to differentiate between city bus and 
coach routes.


Please comment!

Ialokim


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