date:20180608


On 08/06/18 16:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Hi,

it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call
for strong leadership to solve them once and for all. OSM is no exception.

On 08.06.2018 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:

I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a
brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.

Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw?


A 'benevolent dictator'.

Let us know if you find one.


And if something turns out to be designed wrongly, how will it be
challenged?


And I wouldn't mind if
these keys were enforced from now on.


How would do the enforcing?
At the moment you can use any tags you  like.
I hope that does not change.


Not having an enforced set of keys and values was definitely a big part
of OSM's success (there *were* competing projects which got stuck trying
to define the one true set of keys and values that would work for
everything).

Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to
get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to
something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not
convinced; a lot of innovation is still going on with tags, and strict
enforcement would run the risk of killing that.


Someone some time ago on one
of the OSM mailing lists summed up the current situation by stating, "It
seems OSM is incapable of moving forward."

OpenStreetMap is becoming a larger group of more diverse people with
more diverse interests, and since we don't - and don't aim to - have a
dictator at the top, things need to be done by consensus. These people
who take to the internet complaining about how OSM is incapable of
moving forward usually are people who are unwilling, or unable, to
convince the "great unwashed" their idea of "forward" is a good thing.
So they lament the lack of leadership and complain about "gatekeeping",
but it's really just them being unable to do the work required to
establish consensus in a large project.

Because that takes much more than a couple of blog posts (cf. the
license change).


It takes a lot of work.

And that would not change with some top level person dictating things.

One of the main  problems is inertia.

Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases.. well 
all the ones I'd change if I were dictator)
that convincing most that they need to change gets very hard.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 08:29 by frede...@remote.org :





> Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to
> get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to
> something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not
> convinced; a lot of innovation is still going on with tags, and strict
> enforcement would run the risk of killing that.
>



I would start from easy wins, for example why we have both FIXME and fixme 
tags?Why we still have wikipedia:pl, wikipedia:en duplicating wikipedia keys?
Note: in both cases there is an ongoing work to purge this tags (without 
harming data)in Poland, I plan to propose later a worldwide mechanical edit.

Even easy stuff like that is complicated to do properly.


> there *were* competing projects which got stuck trying
> to define the one true set of keys and values that would work for
> everything
>




Are you aware about some post-mortem analysis of this competition?

It is very interesting for me to read why some communities thrive and why

some die.




For wikipedia "Almost Wikipedia: What Eight Early Online Collaborative 
Encyclopedia 


Projects Reveal about the Mechanisms of Collective Action" was quite 
interesting (

it suggested that many competing projects (a) focused too much on technical 
issues and

got bogged down by work on a specialized software (b) tried too many new things 
at once,

while "encyclopedia" was recognizable).

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


> In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a land 
> use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is covered with 
> trees.'
>




I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on general purpose 
map.




Also, anyway there is nobody interested in tagging this information, time 
wasted on this discussion

would allow to increase how many landuse=forestry hundredfold.




Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has 
9[sic!] uses.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging (was: Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag)

8. Jun 2018 02:10 by osm...@leo.gaspard.io :


> Then, I heard there were strong opinions in OSM against mass-retaggings.
> I honestly don't get why. 




Main issues are that 

(a) some people would be against any given mass retagging.

So how to distinguish ones with broad support, sufficient to do that from ones 
that should not be done?




(b) any existing program processing this tag would become broken and would 
require update
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 > Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some
cases.. that
convincing most that they need to change gets very hard.

True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive
changes, 100% backwards compatible, the change is already in progress
despite not being rendered, and the only thing in the way is in fact the
lack of rendering while at the tagging side people would prefer the
direction change if it was... I think it's more like a veto than like a
lack of consensus about the idea.

Such a situation could be solved by a strong leader. But that's not how OSM
is built.
Other ways are conditional commitment and experiment.

In this case, if there was a commitment from the renderer side, say to plan
the rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass if the use of the key
rises above [N] by [deadline], I think that would give taggers the choice
they now don't have.

Some of them will still say "it's not rendered" now so I will use the old
tags.
Others will tag both, so it will be rendered anyway, and redundant tags can
be removed later, no hurry.
Others will tag for the new situation, knowing that the blanks on the map
will fill in once the time has come.

BTW, Current usage of landcover=* according to taginfo is over 49000, and
still rising despite not being rendered or offered as a preset by tagging
tools.



2018-06-08 9:01 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 08/06/18 16:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call
>> for strong leadership to solve them once and for all. OSM is no exception.
>>
>> On 08.06.2018 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a
>>> brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.
>>>
>> Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw?
>>
>
> A 'benevolent dictator'.
>
> Let us know if you find one.
>
> And if something turns out to be designed wrongly, how will it be
>> challenged?
>>
>> And I wouldn't mind if
>>> these keys were enforced from now on.
>>>
>>
> How would do the enforcing?
> At the moment you can use any tags you  like.
> I hope that does not change.
>
> Not having an enforced set of keys and values was definitely a big part
>> of OSM's success (there *were* competing projects which got stuck trying
>> to define the one true set of keys and values that would work for
>> everything).
>>
>> Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to
>> get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to
>> something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not
>> convinced; a lot of innovation is still going on with tags, and strict
>> enforcement would run the risk of killing that.
>>
>> Someone some time ago on one
>>> of the OSM mailing lists summed up the current situation by stating, "It
>>> seems OSM is incapable of moving forward."
>>>
>> OpenStreetMap is becoming a larger group of more diverse people with
>> more diverse interests, and since we don't - and don't aim to - have a
>> dictator at the top, things need to be done by consensus. These people
>> who take to the internet complaining about how OSM is incapable of
>> moving forward usually are people who are unwilling, or unable, to
>> convince the "great unwashed" their idea of "forward" is a good thing.
>> So they lament the lack of leadership and complain about "gatekeeping",
>> but it's really just them being unable to do the work required to
>> establish consensus in a large project.
>>
>> Because that takes much more than a couple of blog posts (cf. the
>> license change).
>>
>
> It takes a lot of work.
>
> And that would not change with some top level person dictating things.
>
> One of the main  problems is inertia.
>
> Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases..
> well all the ones I'd change if I were dictator)
> that convincing most that they need to change gets very hard.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards


8. Jun 2018 00:54 by graemefi...@gmail.com :


> What does everybody think?




Are you proposing a mechanical edit or adding recommendation on wiki or 
something else? 

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 10:33 by pelder...@gmail.com :


> In this case, if there was a commitment from the renderer side, say to plan 
> the rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass if the use of the key 
> rises above [N] by [deadline], I think that would give taggers the choice 
> they now don't have. 
>




The problem is that it would strongly encourage undiscussed mechanical edits.




DWG has already massive queue of damaging edits without encouraging additional 
ones.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging (was: Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag)

Hi

2018-06-08 10:29 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
> So how to distinguish ones with broad support, sufficient to do that from
> ones that should not be done?
>
Exactly!
It's a big issue since support of a tag is the main criteria to see it in
renders or presets of many tools.



> (b) any existing program processing this tag would become broken and would
> require update
>
This can easily be solved with a warning service about upcoming changes,
let's say for 3 months before mass retagging be done.
OSM shouldn't stuck on less relevant tagging just because come consumers
have hard-coded keys or values.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag


On 08/06/18 18:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry'
as a land use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this
polygon is covered with trees.'


I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on general 
purpose map.



Also, anyway there is nobody interested in tagging this information, 
time wasted on this discussion


would allow to increase how many landuse=forestry hundredfold.


Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it 
has 9[sic!] uses.




I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to 
landuse=forestry ... there would then be a lot more than 9.
Some 68 with recreational facilities and about 540 more with no 
facilities. More in other places. And these truly are used for 
production, not just the presence of trees.

But the present renders and mappers would not like it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


>> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestryand it 
>> has 9[sic!] uses.
> 
> I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to
> landuse=forestry ... there would then be a lot more than 9. 




 Are you sure that area covered by trees and area used for forestry purposes is 
exactly the same?




In my experience there are nearly always differences.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread Lionel Giard

>
> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has
> 9[sic!] uses.
>
I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition not
used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules of "we
should use the accepted tags in wiki...".


But whatever, as said before, we could take a step by step approach(and
test it) :
- first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as
landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that
are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to
reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and
"landuse=forest" ;
- Then, discuss if we need to add a forestry tag and maybe make a proposal
for it. It could probably just be to create a *new *tag, and still use
"landuse=forest" when it is *unknown* (like for highway=road when we don't
know the type or usage of a road). This would have the advantage of being
backward compatible, just introducing a more precise tags for are with know
forestry use for example.

And most importantly, it would advance the discussion, as most people are
probably just looking for the first steps (having landcover=trees in an
renderer and presets, while the second part interest probably a smaller
fraction of the community (which are more into forest tagging - and i know
that some people are interested in Belgium).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Hi,

According to this page :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway

it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this
too restrictive.
Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot.
It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes actually

Access=no would mean no one can go on it, buses included.

Should't it be replaced by access=designated?

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 Thread Volker Schmidt

According to this page :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway
>
> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no
>

I can't find this statement on that page
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

So you would need a commitment from the tagger side not to do that, because
it would invalidate the experiment. Maybe a provision can be made for
cautious transitional measures if the experiment results in a go? Then all
projects are aware and there is no need for undiscussed mechanical edits.


2018-06-08 10:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 8. Jun 2018 10:33 by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> In this case, if there was a commitment from the renderer side, say to
> plan the rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass if the use of the
> key rises above [N] by [deadline], I think that would give taggers the
> choice they now don't have.
>
>
> The problem is that it would strongly encourage undiscussed mechanical
> edits.
>
>
> DWG has already massive queue of damaging edits without encouraging
> additional ones.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 10:44 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com 
:


> Hi,
> According to this page :> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway 
> 
> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this 
> too restrictive.




I found only "Bus-only roads (asphalt/tarmac): highway=* + access=no + bus=yes"

It is only for bus-only roads, access=no indicates that generally nobody is 
allowed
and bus=yes specified that buses are an exception.





It seems clear for me, do you have any idea how it may be clarified?

> Should't it be replaced by access=designated?




I recommend reading https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated 
 

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag


On 08/06/18 18:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :

Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry
and it has 9[sic!] uses. 



I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to
landuse=forestry ... there would then be a lot more than 9. 



 Are you sure that area covered by trees and area used for forestry 
purposes is exactly the same?



Yes. Well some of the time the trees are gone, not from all areas at 
once but from time to time - after all the trees get used to make things 
like houses.


These areas are government owned -
"Forestry Corporation of NSW is the largest manager of commercial native 
and plantation forests in NSW. We manage recreation 
, environmental 
sustainability  and 
renewable timber production 
 in more than 
two million hectares of NSW State forests."
"We are Australia's largest grower of plantation pine 
, 
producing enough timber to construct a quarter of the houses built in 
Australia each year, and produce certified sustainable 
 native 
hardwood timber. A State Owned Corporation with an independent Board of 
Directors 
, 
our sustainability framework 
 
sets out our principles for managing both the forests and our business"


That does not include private property areas that are also used for 
timber production.
And yes they are mapped in OSM .. using copyright material that OSM has 
been granted written approval to use.


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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On the "Other" section :
Bus-only roads (asphalt/tarmac): highway
=* + access
=no
 + bus
=yes

Should access tag even be used for bus lanes ?

François

*François Lacombe*

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

2018-06-08 10:51 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :

>
>
>
> According to this page :
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway
>>
>> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no
>>
>
> I can't find this statement on that page
>
>
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com :


> - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as 
> landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that 
> are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to 
> reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and 
> "landuse=forest"




 Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of landuse=forest to 
be a misuse.




It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.

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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Given problem is access=no stands for no one can use the way.
Then why buses would be allowed?
On a bus lane, buses aren't an exception, they are the reason of why the
lane was built.

The sentence "The *designated* value, when used with a mode of transport
key, indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a
government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport." would
match the definition that the lane can only be used for a given mode of
transport like bus.

highway=unclassified + access=designated + bus=yes + cycle=yes is better,
aren't you ?


All the best
François

*François Lacombe*

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

2018-06-08 10:52 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 8. Jun 2018 10:44 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi,
>
> According to this page :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway
>
> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this
> too restrictive.
>
>
> I found only "Bus-only roads (asphalt/tarmac): highway=* + access=no +
> bus=yes"
>
> It is only for bus-only roads, access=no indicates that generally nobody
> is allowed
> and bus=yes specified that buses are an exception.
>
>
> It seems clear for me, do you have any idea how it may be clarified?
>
> Should't it be replaced by access=designated?
>
>
> I recommend reading https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%
> 3Ddesignated
>
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de :


> The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a 
> significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on 
> the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct use of 
> tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data model 
> ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use.  The 
> uselessness of many tag pages on the wiki - 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgrass 
> >  and 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees 
> >  are good 
> examples here - is largely due to that.  They are filled with talking 
> points from the fight for 'correct' key semantics that leave the mapper 
> looking for substantial information on tag use with nothing but 
> confusion.
>




I made some edits intended to fix this issue:




https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Alanduse%3Dgrass&type=revision&diff=1615924&oldid=1589206
 





https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Landuse&type=revision&diff=1615922&oldid=1601313
 





https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanduse&type=revision&diff=1615920&oldid=1557401
 






In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it is to 
edit it

(it generally takes less time than complaining).

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, but
it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on the map.

2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com:
>
> - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as
> landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that
> are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to
> reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and
> "landuse=forest"
>
>
>  Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of landuse=forest
> to be a misuse.
>
>
> It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 11:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com 
:


> Given problem is access=no stands for no one can use the way.> Then why buses 
> would be allowed?




Because bus=yes tag specifies this.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag


On 08/06/18 18:43, Lionel Giard wrote:


Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and
it has 9[sic!] uses.

I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition 
not used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules 
of "we should use the accepted tags in wiki...".



But whatever, as said before, we could take a step by step 
approach(and test it) :
- first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as 
landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area 
that are not a forest (in other landuse especially).


No. When used for producing timber the trees get harvested - they are 
gone from time to time. So tagging the area as trees is incorrect for 
some of the time.
The landuse=* is about the use of the land .. what it produces for 
humans .. not what is presently there.
Adding landcover=trees to landuse=forest/forestry .. then what? remove 
the landuse=forest/forestry? And thus remove what some have correctly 
tagged?


One solution is not to render landuse=forest/forestry the same as 
landcover=trees/natural=wood ... make it different in a way that people 
will see the difference on the map. Then they will start to 'tag for the 
render' and as th erender now shows that landuse=forest/forestry is 
different, say by adding an axe to the landuse rendering, from 
landcover=trees/natural=wood the mappers will be able to make better 
choices.


It will gradually help to reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other 
tags "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest" ;
- Then, discuss if we need to add a forestry tag and maybe make a 
proposal for it. It could probably just be to create a _new _tag, and 
still use "landuse=forest" when it is _unknown_ (like for highway=road 
when we don't know the type or usage of a road). This would have the 
advantage of being backward compatible, just introducing a more 
precise tags for are with know forestry use for example.


If you can only see trees then tag the trees - 
landcover=trees/natural=wood.

Do not use landuse=* if you don't know what the land is used for ..
it is rather simple if you use the base language.



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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag


On 08/06/18 19:05, Peter Elderson wrote:
Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, 
but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on 
the map.

natural=wood works... and is 'free' of the land use requirement.
The word 'natural' has been taken to mean anything in OSM .. sigh.
So natural=wood is much bette thatn landuse=forest.

 Landcover is a much clear meaning and can be used for 'natural' and 
'unnatural'.

So I normally combine it with anything that is tagged 'natural'.



2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >:


8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com
:

- first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the
same as landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better
tagging in area that are not a forest (in other landuse
especially). It will gradually help to reduce the quantity of
"misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest"


 Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of
landuse=forest to be a misuse.


It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.


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





--
Vr gr Peter Elderson


___
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] Access=no for bus lanes

I know
Then since some access is allowed, access=designated is more suitable than
access=no

When you parse some data with access=no you aren't supposed to look for
exceptions.
Access=designated encourage you to look for more precise access
possibilities.


All the best

*François Lacombe*

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

2018-06-08 11:06 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 8. Jun 2018 11:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>
> Given problem is access=no stands for no one can use the way.
> Then why buses would be allowed?
>
>
> Because bus=yes tag specifies this.
>
> ___
> 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] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 11:10 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com 
:


> When you parse some data with access=no you aren't supposed to look for 
> exceptions.




Untrue, you are supposed to do that.

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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if
access=no can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not
possible.

Define bus access on a dedicated bus lane as an exception is confusing.
Car access would be the more global access than bus or bicycle ?

All the best

*François Lacombe*

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

2018-06-08 11:13 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 8. Jun 2018 11:10 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>
> When you parse some data with access=no you aren't supposed to look for
> exceptions.
>
>
> Untrue, you are supposed to do that.
>
> ___
> 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] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 Thread marc marc

about "Bus-only roads"

Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:00, François Lacombe a écrit :
> highway=unclassified + access=designated + bus=yes + cycle=yes

access=no + bus=designated (+ cycle=yes and/or taxi in some country)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 Thread Volker Schmidt

The access=designated wiki page explains the concept very clearly:
" *NOTE!* The exact key/value combination access
=designated should *never*
appear on an object. The value * 
=designated must be used with a specific mode of transport. Examples:
bicycle =designated
 or foot
=designated
. "

You could make a case for using bus=designated plus bicycle=designated for
bus-and-bicycle-only roads. This would be in line with the tagging of
foot-cycle-paths with bicycle=designated plus foot=designated
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 11:20 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com 
:


> Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if access=no 
> can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not possible.




access=designated should never be used, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated 


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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 Thread Lionel Giard

Yes the idea behind access=* is a general tag - it indicate for every other
transport types (except if another more specific tag is used) : so
access=private just say that for every type of transport it is a private
access, and if you add foot=yes, it became "private for everyone except
people on foot that can walk freely). There is a hierarchy as shown on the
wiki where a more specific access tag override restriction.

2018-06-08 11:25 GMT+02:00 marc marc :

> about "Bus-only roads"
>
> Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:00, François Lacombe a écrit :
> > highway=unclassified + access=designated + bus=yes + cycle=yes
>
> access=no + bus=designated (+ cycle=yes and/or taxi in some country)
> ___
> 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] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread Rory McCann


On 08/06/18 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a 
brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.  And I wouldn't mind if 
these keys were enforced from now on.  And I wouldn't mind that I would 
have to relearn all the tagging I now know.  Yes, it would be a "brave 
new world," and not the OSM we know now.  Someone some time ago on one 
of the OSM mailing lists summed up the current situation by stating, "It 
seems OSM is incapable of moving forward."  Unless we ever have more 
structure, I agree.


One way to try this could be to fork OSM? It's open data, go for it.

Set up a new project, and import the OSM data, and mass change the tags?
Replicate data from OSM, applying your data transformation programme
automatically? People can choose to contribute data to your project. You
can provide data downloads where data users can know that it's structured.

If your project is successful, then enough of the OSM community will
move there and you'll "win".

Yes it takes a lot of work, but what you're proposing is going to take
work anyway, so why not try?


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 > In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it
is to edit it

Would you like me to add more realistic and more common examples of
landuses which are not landuses? I just checked the residential I live in
and most of the landuse=forest an landuse=grass areas are much more
significant than the middle of a roundabout or grass on a railway.

2018-06-08 11:03 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de:
>
> The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
> significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on
> the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct use of
> tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data model
> ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use. The
> uselessness of many tag pages on the wiki -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgrass and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees are good
> examples here - is largely due to that. They are filled with talking
> points from the fight for 'correct' key semantics that leave the mapper
> looking for substantial information on tag use with nothing but
> confusion.
>
>
> I made some edits intended to fix this issue:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%
> 3Alanduse%3Dgrass&type=revision&diff=1615924&oldid=1589206
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Landuse&;
> type=revision&diff=1615922&oldid=1601313
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%
> 3Alanduse&type=revision&diff=1615920&oldid=1557401
>
>
> In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it
> is to edit it
>
> (it generally takes less time than complaining).
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 19:03, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de :

The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose,
who on
the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct
use of
tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data model
ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use. The
uselessness of many tag pages on the wiki -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgrass and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees are good
examples here - is largely due to that. They are filled with talking
points from the fight for 'correct' key semantics that leave the
mapper
looking for substantial information on tag use with nothing but
confusion.

I made some edits intended to fix this issue:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Alanduse%3Dgrass&type=revision&diff=1615924&oldid=1589206

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Landuse&type=revision&diff=1615922&oldid=1601313

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanduse&type=revision&diff=1615920&oldid=1557401

In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with
it is to edit it

(it generally takes less time than complaining).

And results in edit wars.
I have amended your edit on landuse... and in landcover
I do not like the change the meaning of land use as defined on its wiki
page. So I have tried to moderate that.

I hope I have been even handed .. but I have my bias too!!!

Would someone like to read them and see what you think? Preferable
someone with less passion than I (and possibly some others).

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

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread marc marc

Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:34, Rory McCann a écrit :
> Replicate data from OSM, applying your data transformation programme

it's already what nearly all use of osm is doing.
it's named "preprocessor" or alias
it's waste that nearly all data use need to build their own list.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with
> it is to edit it
>
> (it generally takes less time than complaining).

I try to do that but don't really have the stomach to engage in turf 
wars with defenders of religion-like views on what tags should mean and 
which tags are good and bad.  And as you can see this is exactly what 
is happening with your edits again.

The irony is that those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top 
down tagging system - by derailing the community processes - instill a 
desire for an authority to stop this even among those who are in 
general in support of a liberal and non-authoritarian community.

An egalitarian and open community like OSM is a fragile thing...

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
down tagging system - by derailing the community processes 

I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why the
strawman argument?

2018-06-08 12:00 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >
> > In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with
> > it is to edit it
> >
> > (it generally takes less time than complaining).
>
> I try to do that but don't really have the stomach to engage in turf
> wars with defenders of religion-like views on what tags should mean and
> which tags are good and bad.  And as you can see this is exactly what
> is happening with your edits again.
>
> The irony is that those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
> down tagging system - by derailing the community processes - instill a
> desire for an authority to stop this even among those who are in
> general in support of a liberal and non-authoritarian community.
>
> An egalitarian and open community like OSM is a fragile thing...
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> One way to try this could be to fork OSM? It's open data, go for it.
>

As unlikely as it is that this will actually happen yes, this would be a 
very good idea.  As Frederik has said there were projects competing 
with OSM following a more centralized, more heavy handed approach - but 
most of them vanished.  Having an alternative where those who are not 
satisfied with the laissez-faire approach of OSM can find a place would 
be very healthy - even if, especially if this turns into a serious 
competition.

In a way the worst thing that could happen to OSM in the long term is 
that it becomes 'alternativlos' to both data users and contributors.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 Thread osm.tagging

To be a bit more specific about it:

 

All access tags follow the pattern:

 

transport mode = access value

 

All the different transport modes form a tree, as can bee seen here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation

 

“access” is the key used for the transport mode at the root of the tree.

 

To find out the effective access value for a specific transport mode (a leaf 
node in the tree of transport nodes) you start at that transport mode and check 
if there is a tag defining an access value, if not, you go to the parent in the 
transport mode tree and repeat the check, until you either find a tag (which is 
then the effective access value) or you checked for the “access” tag (the root 
of the tree) and didn’t find it.

 

So if you tag something as e.g.:

 

access=no

psv=designated

 

and you want to know the access value for e.g. a normal car, you check:

 

motorcar -> not found

motor_vehicle -> not found

vehicle -> not found

access=no

 

your effective access value for motorcar is no.

 

If instead you want to check for bus, you check:

 

bus -> not found

psv=designated

 

your effective access value for bus is designated.

 

If you would tag something (very wrongly) as 

 

access=designated

 

that would mean that any check that reaches the root of the tree would result 
in the access value of designated. Which makes the highway designated for every 
possible type of transport. And anything that's everything is nothing…

 

From: Lionel Giard  
Sent: Friday, 8 June 2018 19:30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

 

Yes the idea behind access=* is a general tag - it indicate for every other 
transport types (except if another more specific tag is used) : so 
access=private just say that for every type of transport it is a private 
access, and if you add foot=yes, it became "private for everyone except people 
on foot that can walk freely). There is a hierarchy as shown on the wiki where 
a more specific access tag override restriction. 

 

2018-06-08 11:25 GMT+02:00 marc marc mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> >:

about "Bus-only roads"

Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:00, François Lacombe a écrit :
> highway=unclassified + access=designated + bus=yes + cycle=yes

access=no + bus=designated (+ cycle=yes and/or taxi in some country)

___
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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
>
> down tagging system - by derailing the community processes 
>
> I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why
> the strawman argument?

Just look at the edit histories of the wiki pages in question.

Or as i have said in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/036876.html

> The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
> significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who
> on the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct
> use of tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data
> model ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use.

As i said again and again:  The main purpose of the tag documentation on 
the wiki is to document the actual use of tags.  Abusing this platform 
to push political ideas how tagging in OSM should look like according 
to some opinion is what i call derailing the community processes.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

2018-06-08 Thread Andrew Harvey

I strongly disagree that they are the same, they are used to map different
things, as noted on the wiki by the detailed descriptions
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aemergency#Lifeguards.

Low usage is likely just because there aren't that many of these in the
real world and not many people have been mapping them.

So in my option we should continue to support the existing tags and keep
mapping with them. I've been mapping the areas I know using the current
defined schema.

"should be rendered" -> do you mean on the default OpenStreetMap style? Did
you want to open a ticket on the stylesheet issue tracker
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+lifeguard

+1 for having presets in the iD editor too.

On 8 June 2018 at 08:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Just raised (or re-raised) the suggestion that lifeguard stations
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aemergency should be rendered
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4918#event-1668877116, as it
> could be a potentially life-saving addition to the map.
>
> Bryan had quite correctly pointed out that there are lot of similar, but
> all pretty rarely used (<1000) tags for essentially the same thing, so has
> suggested replacing them all with a simple emergency=lifeguard.
>
> I can't see any major problem with doing that, but also keeping
> emergency=life_ring for those places (boardwalks, jetties etc) where an
> unaccompanied life ring is positioned.
>
> What does everybody think?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Lifeguards

2018-06-08 Thread osm.tagging

I agree that the 5 different values shown on the wiki describe distinctly 
different things and should all be retained.

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Friday, 8 June 2018 20:41
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

I strongly disagree that they are the same, they are used to map different 
things, as noted on the wiki by the detailed descriptions 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aemergency#Lifeguards.

Low usage is likely just because there aren't that many of these in the real 
world and not many people have been mapping them.

So in my option we should continue to support the existing tags and keep 
mapping with them. I've been mapping the areas I know using the current defined 
schema.

"should be rendered" -> do you mean on the default OpenStreetMap style? Did you 
want to open a ticket on the stylesheet issue tracker 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93 

 &q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+lifeguard

+1 for having presets in the iD editor too.

On 8 June 2018 at 08:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi

Just raised (or re-raised) the suggestion that lifeguard stations 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aemergency should be rendered 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4918#event-1668877116, as it could 
be a potentially life-saving addition to the map.

Bryan had quite correctly pointed out that there are lot of similar, but all 
pretty rarely used (<1000) tags for essentially the same thing, so has 
suggested replacing them all with a simple emergency=lifeguard.

I can't see any major problem with doing that, but also keeping 
emergency=life_ring for those places (boardwalks, jetties etc) where an 
unaccompanied life ring is positioned.

What does everybody think?

Thanks

Graeme

___
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] Access=no for bus lanes

Thank you for useful details osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au, I didn't
get things that way before

Then it's ok for access=no, I'll update my parser

All the best

*François Lacombe*

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

2018-06-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 :

> To be a bit more specific about it:
>
>
>
> All access tags follow the pattern:
>
>
>
> transport mode = access value
>
>
>
> All the different transport modes form a tree, as can bee seen here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation
>
>
>
> “access” is the key used for the transport mode at the root of the tree.
>
>
>
> To find out the effective access value for a specific transport mode (a
> leaf node in the tree of transport nodes) you start at that transport mode
> and check if there is a tag defining an access value, if not, you go to the
> parent in the transport mode tree and repeat the check, until you either
> find a tag (which is then the effective access value) or you checked for
> the “access” tag (the root of the tree) and didn’t find it.
>
>
>
> So if you tag something as e.g.:
>
>
>
> access=no
>
> psv=designated
>
>
>
> and you want to know the access value for e.g. a normal car, you check:
>
>
>
> motorcar -> not found
>
> motor_vehicle -> not found
>
> vehicle -> not found
>
> access=no
>
>
>
> your effective access value for motorcar is no.
>
>
>
> If instead you want to check for bus, you check:
>
>
>
> bus -> not found
>
> psv=designated
>
>
>
> your effective access value for bus is designated.
>
>
>
> If you would tag something (very wrongly) as
>
>
>
> access=designated
>
>
>
> that would mean that any check that reaches the root of the tree would
> result in the access value of designated. Which makes the highway
> designated for every possible type of transport. And anything that's
> everything is nothing…
>
>
>
> *From:* Lionel Giard 
> *Sent:* Friday, 8 June 2018 19:30
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes
>
>
>
> Yes the idea behind access=* is a general tag - it indicate for every
> other transport types (except if another more specific tag is used) : so
> access=private just say that for every type of transport it is a private
> access, and if you add foot=yes, it became "private for everyone except
> people on foot that can walk freely). There is a hierarchy as shown on the
> wiki where a more specific access tag override restriction.
>
>
>
> 2018-06-08 11:25 GMT+02:00 marc marc :
>
> about "Bus-only roads"
>
> Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:00, François Lacombe a écrit :
> > highway=unclassified + access=designated + bus=yes + cycle=yes
>
> access=no + bus=designated (+ cycle=yes and/or taxi in some country)
>
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I didn't
see  anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system - derailing
the community processes" .

At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
appropriate? At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki pages?

2018-06-08 12:40 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
> >
> > down tagging system - by derailing the community processes 
> >
> > I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why
> > the strawman argument?
>
> Just look at the edit histories of the wiki pages in question.
>
> Or as i have said in
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/036876.html
>
> > The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
> > significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who
> > on the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct
> > use of tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data
> > model ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use.
>
> As i said again and again:  The main purpose of the tag documentation on
> the wiki is to document the actual use of tags.  Abusing this platform
> to push political ideas how tagging in OSM should look like according
> to some opinion is what i call derailing the community processes.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

2018-06-08 Thread Leo Gaspard

On 06/08/2018 10:29 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> (a) some people would be against any given mass retagging.
> 
> So how to distinguish ones with broad support, sufficient to do that from 
> ones that should not be done?

Well, basically tags are a kind of protocol, between the tagger and the
renderer. Thus, following the process of the IETF would seem to make
sense to me: have a chairman who is in charge of evaluating “rough
consensus” of the ML users about what tags are Good and what tags are Bad.

Also, some mechanical edits lose strictly no information. For the use
case described in this thread, here are two mass-retaggings that I can
think of:
 * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees
 * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees

There is no information loss because anyway if the land was tagged
properly before, it still will after, and no tag are removed.

Then tools can be adapted to generate and render landcover=trees instead
of landuse=forest. And finally landuse=forest can be deprecated and
replaced by landuse=forestry where it makes sense.

The point being, here the important mass-retaggings are only adding tags
to already-tagged objects, so there is nothing lost by the change.

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

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread Daniel Koć

W dniu 08.06.2018 o 11:34, Rory McCann pisze:
> Yes it takes a lot of work, but what you're proposing is going to take
> work anyway, so why not try?

Well, you've said it - because it's a lot of work. :-)

It would be much easier to set up an alternative rendering server with
an trivial osm-carto fork. That would help to spread the new tagging.
It's still a lot of work, though.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]



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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I
> didn't see  anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system -
> derailing the community processes" .

Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional from 
my point of view with a lot of dogmatism on the side of of the 'key 
systematics fraction' and insistent refusal to look outside the own 
filter bubble and to accept the existence of other valid world views.

Citing once again from Andy's earlier mail:

> The tagging list does occasionally fall into the wiki-hole of trying
> to tell people how to map rather than communally deciding the best
> way to map something (including by looking at how people already
> do).  In any situation where you're trying to suggest that "everybody
> else is wrong" you need to get over it, and OSM in particular has
> thrived where other similar projects failed simply because people can
> always find a way of expressing a particular concept - they can
> create a way of representing it themselves without a "domain expert"
> creating it for them first. There may well be a concept out there
> waiting to be mapped that needs a "landcover" tag (and it might be
> "municipal greenery"), but it's not grass or trees.

There is a fine line between having a passionate opinion about something 
and being so convinced about the righteousness of your cause that you 
drift into dogmatism and intolerance.

> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
> appropriate?

Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion 
for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags 
have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags 
have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.  Of course every 
maintainer is free to base decisions on any criteria they see fit.

> At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki 
> pages?

Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or 
vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

2018-06-08 10:44 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe :

>
> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this
> too restrictive.
> Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot.
> It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes actually
>


for bus _lanes_ access=no will typically make sense, for bus _roads_ (i.e.
only busses allowed on the road, but there might be other non-lanes
included in the highway, like sidewalks) I have sometimes found this
applied by error, because mappers forgot about the pedestrians.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 >> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
>> appropriate?

> Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion
> for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags
> have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags
> have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.

Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to consider
supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass?

>> At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki
>> pages?

> Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or
> vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.

That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?


2018-06-08 13:55 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I
> > didn't see  anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system -
> > derailing the community processes" .
>
> Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional from
> my point of view with a lot of dogmatism on the side of of the 'key
> systematics fraction' and insistent refusal to look outside the own
> filter bubble and to accept the existence of other valid world views.
>
> Citing once again from Andy's earlier mail:
>
> > The tagging list does occasionally fall into the wiki-hole of trying
> > to tell people how to map rather than communally deciding the best
> > way to map something (including by looking at how people already
> > do).  In any situation where you're trying to suggest that "everybody
> > else is wrong" you need to get over it, and OSM in particular has
> > thrived where other similar projects failed simply because people can
> > always find a way of expressing a particular concept - they can
> > create a way of representing it themselves without a "domain expert"
> > creating it for them first. There may well be a concept out there
> > waiting to be mapped that needs a "landcover" tag (and it might be
> > "municipal greenery"), but it's not grass or trees.
>
> There is a fine line between having a passionate opinion about something
> and being so convinced about the righteousness of your cause that you
> drift into dogmatism and intolerance.
>
> > At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
> > appropriate?
>
> Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion
> for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags
> have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags
> have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.  Of course every
> maintainer is free to base decisions on any criteria they see fit.
>
> > At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki
> > pages?
>
> Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or
> vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 Thread osm.tagging

Depending on the exact situation, it might be necessary to do something like:

 

access=no

bus=designated

foot=yes

 

or

 

vehicle=no

bus=designated

 

or

 

motor_vehicle=no

bus=designated

 

or any number of other variants.

 

It’s important to look closely at the transport mode tree.

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Friday, 8 June 2018 22:19
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

 

2018-06-08 10:44 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe mailto:fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> >:

 

it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this too 
restrictive.

Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot.

It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes actually

 

 

for bus _lanes_ access=no will typically make sense, for bus _roads_ (i.e. only 
busses allowed on the road, but there might be other non-lanes included in the 
highway, like sidewalks) I have sometimes found this applied by error, because 
mappers forgot about the pedestrians.

 

Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

2018-06-08 Thread Jeroen Hoek


On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote:

  * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees
  * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees


Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=forest imply 
landcover=trees instead? It seems like a sensible default (similar to 
how access=yes is the default for access to generic highways such as 
highway=unclassified). Any exceptions can be explicitly mapped.


This is similar to how landuse=grass (when used to indicate an area that 
is used to grow grass) would imply landcover=grass.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

2018-06-08 Thread Leo Gaspard

On 06/08/2018 02:37 PM, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote:
>>   * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees
>>   * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees
> 
> Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=forest imply
> landcover=trees instead? It seems like a sensible default (similar to
> how access=yes is the default for access to generic highways such as
> highway=unclassified). Any exceptions can be explicitly mapped.
> 
> This is similar to how landuse=grass (when used to indicate an area that
> is used to grow grass) would imply landcover=grass.

That's a possibility indeed, but then all tools that make use of the OSM
database must add this implication.

With ~70500 keys currently on taginfo, I don't think it's reasonable to
say all tools should support all implications, and keeping implications
to a minimum sounds like a worthy goal. Having implications for eg.
access=* makes sense, because there is no other usable logical use of them.

On the other hand, once a mass-retag would have been made that adds
landcover=trees to landuse=forest, the landuse=forest use could be
deprecated and would naturally slowly phase-out, thus simplifying the
database.

Basically, having an open tagging scheme makes sense for quick
development or tagging new things. I'm not saying it should be removed.
But once something becomes a “recognized” use case (as “this place is
covered with trees” is, currently handled by natural=wood or
landuse=forest), I think it would make sense to at least attempt to
“normalize” them. Potentially including mass-retags to map
previously-used tags to the standardized version.

Then again, I'm so new to OSM that you can consider this an outsider's
opinion who just thinks that the database is way more scattered than it
needs to be, and this makes tool development harder to make complete,
thus weakening the ecosystem when each tool supports a slightly
different set of tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:45 François Lacombe 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> According to this page :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway
>
> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this
> too restrictive.
> Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot.
> It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes actually
>
> Access=no would mean no one can go on it, buses included.
>

Correct, however, access=* sets the default access for the way.  Modal
access types create exceptions.

Should't it be replaced by access=designated?
>

This tag makes no sense.

I think you're fishing for something like this:

highway=busway
access=no
bus=designated
taxi=yes
bicycle=yes
foot=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:54 François Lacombe 
wrote:

> On the "Other" section :
> Bus-only roads (asphalt/tarmac): highway
> =* + access
> =no
>  + bus
> =yes
>
> Should access tag even be used for bus lanes ?
>

If it's just, say, the right lane that is only open to buses, then try...

access:lanes=yes|no
bus:lanes=yes|designated
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 04:20 François Lacombe 
wrote:

> Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if
> access=no can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not
> possible.
>

designated is basically more yes than yes, but is specific to mode access
only.

private is a conditional no in general, you're granted specific permission
to enter by the owner or operator.

permissive is a conditional yes in general, you're allowed to go there
until the operator decides to tell you to GTFO or FOAD.

access=no means it's not going to happen, don't bother making it happen.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant
> > criterion for decisions in the standard style if to render a
> > certain tag.  Tags have been added to rendering with less than a
> > hundred uses and tags have been rejected with more than 100k uses i
> > think.
>
> Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to
> consider supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and
> landcover=grass?
>
> > Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a
> > typo or vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
>
> That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
> supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?

Peter, i get the distinct impression you are not actually interested in 
the answers to your questions but use them as vehicles to push your 
point of view in tagging.

If you are interested in my opinion ask open questions and show some 
appreciation and acceptance of the answers you get and don't just 
continue asking questions until you get an answer you like.

I will none the less try to answer your new question with

1) As i have already said historically absolute use numbers have not 
been a significant criterion for decisions in the standard style and 
they would not be a criterion in my decisions.  I can't speak for the 
other maintainers of course.

2) A good documentation of a tag on the wiki that accurately describes 
how the tag is acutally used is very helpful for both mappers and data 
users and as such very useful when making rendering decisions.  
Attempts at writing a tag page (or a tagging proposal) on the wiki 
specifically to get it rendered however are just annoying.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:34 Peter Elderson  wrote:

> > Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases.. 
> > that
> convincing most that they need to change gets very hard.
>
> True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive
> changes, 100% backwards compatible, the change is already in progress
> despite not being rendered, and the only thing in the way is in fact the
> lack of rendering while at the tagging side people would prefer the
> direction change if it was... I think it's more like a veto than like a
> lack of consensus about the idea.
>

Seems to be the same situation on counting all lanes as lanes instead of
picking and choosing.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

I am justr trying to get concrete answers and apply them to the argument at
hand. Thanks for the answers.

In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to
address that. I have not seen wiki pages just to force rendering, though,
but I can see how it sort of builds the pressure.

2018-06-08 16:35 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant
> > > criterion for decisions in the standard style if to render a
> > > certain tag.  Tags have been added to rendering with less than a
> > > hundred uses and tags have been rejected with more than 100k uses i
> > > think.
> >
> > Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to
> > consider supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and
> > landcover=grass?
> >
> > > Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a
> > > typo or vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
> >
> > That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
> > supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?
>
> Peter, i get the distinct impression you are not actually interested in
> the answers to your questions but use them as vehicles to push your
> point of view in tagging.
>
> If you are interested in my opinion ask open questions and show some
> appreciation and acceptance of the answers you get and don't just
> continue asking questions until you get an answer you like.
>
> I will none the less try to answer your new question with
>
> 1) As i have already said historically absolute use numbers have not
> been a significant criterion for decisions in the standard style and
> they would not be a criterion in my decisions.  I can't speak for the
> other maintainers of course.
>
> 2) A good documentation of a tag on the wiki that accurately describes
> how the tag is acutally used is very helpful for both mappers and data
> users and as such very useful when making rendering decisions.
> Attempts at writing a tag page (or a tagging proposal) on the wiki
> specifically to get it rendered however are just annoying.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com:
>
> In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a
> land use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is
> covered with trees.'
>
>
> I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on general
> purpose map.
>
The "No. You can't have that." answer, as predicted. But I strongly
disagree.

Let me take a step back.

I'm chiefly concerned with how I ought to be tagging objects for which I
maintain imports. I simply want to have some tagging available that will
neither sacrifice rendering nor incur the wrath of the ontologists.

Among these are some areas that have titles like 'State Forest'. They are
well delineated. They are signed. While they lack developed facilities for
recreation (typically limited to some blazed trails, some unpaved parking,
and perhaps a notice board and register book at a trailhead), they offer
many recreational opportunities for hikers, cyclists, equestrians, skiers,
snowshoers, snowmobilists, canoeists, bird watchers, hunters, trappers and
fisherfolk. They are open to the public, in general, whenever active
harvesting is not in progress and the area is not newly planted for
reforestation. They are at present tagged 'boundary=protected_area' with a
protection class corresponding to the regulatory regime in effect for a
given area.

They are not parks, and surely not national parks, but they occupy a
similar space in the public consciousness, because of the recreational
opportunities they offer. According to the Wiki description, 'leisure=park'
is clearly wrong - it envisions considerably more developed facilities than
a patch of woodland. Still, the general public would surely expect that a
map would include them - just as it includes parks.

They are currently tagged redundantly. The tag that they all share is
'leisure=nature_reserve'. The term is not quite correct but it is nearly
infinitely elastic. Since they are created to conserve land for sustainable
forestry, they do have the conservation of nature as at least one
objective. In my region there's a pretty broad consensus that it's the
'least worst' tagging that still renders.

They are also tagged 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=6'. This may be
inaccurate, but these areas are listed as such on the IUCN site as well as
OSM. At present some are also incorrectly marked 'landuse=forest', partly
because when the import was performed, the Wiki happened to be in a state
where it described the tag as meaning 'land managed for forestry', and the
import followed the Wiki advice. Nobody raised the issue on talk-us or
imports when the import was discussed.

The key aspect that makes the general public expect to see these areas
rendered is the public recreational use. Nevertheless, that is a secondary
use - the primary land use is that these areas are productive forests.

Because many of the areas are large, they comprise ponds, mud flats,
meadows, scrub and shrub, alder thickets - nearly the entire ecologic
succession. Many of the ponds are cyclic and may in a few decades be
woodland again, depending on where the beavers take up residence next. Even
without human intervention, the land cover is not stable. Modern management
does not attempt to extirpate the beaver (as it did a century ago!) but
instead recognizes this as a key process in rebuilding the soil, preventing
flooding and erosion, and supporting needed biodiversity. Hence, the entire
area is not 'natural=wood' nor 'landcover=trees'. It has varied landcover
that I generally map only for specific projects such as large-scale trail
maps. Instead, I rely on third-party datasets based on multi-band and
multi-season satellite imagery to identify the ecozones.

So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas,
which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the
public? What is the best strategy for keeping these areas rendered in the
short term while still describing them correctly so that future rendering
improvements can exploit the mapped information?

I ask this question about once a year - and every time, a significant
fraction of respondents give me answers that amount to, "You can't have
that because it doesn't fit the ontology," or "You shouldn't want to render
that because so few people are interested in that sort of primitive outdoor
recreation", or "the fact that the land use follows a property line makes
it parcel data, and we don't do cadastral information", or any number of
other answers that dismiss the question rather than trying to answer it.

I don't care what the 'correct' tagging is. I simply get tired of hearing
that everything I try is 'incorrect.' or that features that many in the
general public in my region care about are too specialized to render.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> This is not 'deprecating' landuse=forest - -
>
> it's still there, it can be there indefinitely, it can render correctly.
>
>
> It is exactly deprecating it - see for example
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation
>
> "In several fields, *deprecation* is the discouragement of use of some
> terminology, feature,
> design, or practice, typically because it has been superseded or is no
> longer considered
> efficient or safe, without completely removing it or prohibiting its use. "
>
>
'Deprecation' when applied to features of computer programs usually
indicatesan eventual intent to de-support them and a warning that they may
be de-supported. I'm not in any way asserting that landuse=forest ought not
to be used, merely suggesting that users be warned that the
natural-language meaning might be misleading. It's not unsafe, it's not
inefficient, it's perfectly acceptable to use it with its current meaning -
but it does not describe a land use, it describes a land cover, and if a
land use is intended, a different tag is needed.

I had not realized that you object to 'deprecation' in so broad a sense
that it comprises even a mild warning that 'landuse=forest' is a term of
art in OSM that might not match the natural-language meaning.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread Simon Poole



Am 08.06.2018 um 11:53 schrieb marc marc:
> Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:34, Rory McCann a écrit :
>> Replicate data from OSM, applying your data transformation programme
> it's already what nearly all use of osm is doing.
> it's named "preprocessor" or alias
> it's waste that nearly all data use need to build their own list.
>
You are assuming that the data consumers doing pre-processing
could/would agree on a specific way to normalize the data.

I envision very long discussions on the "normalizing" mailing list bike
sheding what landuse=forest should be mapped to :-).

Seriously, in a such attribute rich dataset as OSM, normalizing is never
going to go away for data consumers and wouldn't go away even if we had
a tagging czar and a completely regular tagging scheme. It would be nice
if going forward we don't create more "weird" stuff, but I think that in
general is the case.

Simon



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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-08 Thread Andy Townsend


On 08/06/2018 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote:


In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to 
address that.


To echo what other people have suggested, you are entirely free to set 
up a rendering* of whatever OSM tags you want as however you want.  To 
do that for Belgium (apologies if I'm misremembering where you're from) 
would cost no more than the price of a decent beer per month.  Setup 
might take a day if you've not done it before; maintenance essentially 
as much or as little time as you want to spend experimenting with the style.


Presumably, however, you're not talking about "a map rendering", you're 
talking about one particular one - the "standard" layer on 
openstreetmap.org (it's only really "standard" to OSM editors though; 
most people who see OSM data will actually see in or a Mapbox map, or in 
MAPS.ME, or in a completely different rendering on a company's website 
or on a sign at a railway station)?


If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things 
differently the traditional way is to do it yourself, and make your 
version better than what exists already.  In this case the barrier to 
entry is pretty low, and there's a wealth of information about style 
design at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ and tools 
(such as a deployable Docker "tile design" instance) that can be used to 
get you started quickly.


Best Regards,

Andy

* https://switch2osm.org/manually-building-a-tile-server-18-04-lts/
** https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 17:32 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


> So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, 
> which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the public? 
> What is the best strategy for keeping these areas rendered in the short term 
> while still describing them correctly so that future rendering improvements 
> can exploit the mapped information?
>




both leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area protect_class=6 sound OK




though it is hard to say more as such entities are not existing in my region 
(in Poland large

part of forest are public and it is typical that they have some sort of 
amenities, but there 


are no cases of such high concentration of amenities in a given well defined 
region with

a legal status).




It is hard to say whatever new tag should be created or currently used are good 
enough to fit.

> I ask this question about once a year - and every time, a significant 
> fraction of respondents give me answers that amount to, "You can't have that 
> because it doesn't fit the ontology," 




wat. It makes no sense at all, we have no tagging czar.




If something is mappable and no tag fits the answer should be "invent a new 
tag".
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 > If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things
differently  ...

I'm not. I am asking about an existing and growing tagging practice and
existing tagging proposal, trying to see if things could move a little
towards a solution within existing standard OSM practice.

I only suggested adding an already existing type of rendering for one
already existing key which has gained some usage despite not being
rendered, not inventing something totally new. I am asking about the
conditions which would have to be met for the standard OSM Carto to
consider doing this. That is not  "tell a group of people within OSM do
things differently".

A proposal for rendering a particular tag which doesn't hurt anyone, is
fully backwards compatible and has already gained some popularity, on OSM
Carto, is hardly a revolution or worth a fork.



2018-06-08 17:52 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend :

> On 08/06/2018 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to
>> address that.
>>
>
> To echo what other people have suggested, you are entirely free to set up
> a rendering* of whatever OSM tags you want as however you want.  To do that
> for Belgium (apologies if I'm misremembering where you're from) would cost
> no more than the price of a decent beer per month.  Setup might take a day
> if you've not done it before; maintenance essentially as much or as little
> time as you want to spend experimenting with the style.
>
> Presumably, however, you're not talking about "a map rendering", you're
> talking about one particular one - the "standard" layer on
> openstreetmap.org (it's only really "standard" to OSM editors though;
> most people who see OSM data will actually see in or a Mapbox map, or in
> MAPS.ME, or in a completely different rendering on a company's website or
> on a sign at a railway station)?
>
> If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things
> differently the traditional way is to do it yourself, and make your version
> better than what exists already.  In this case the barrier to entry is
> pretty low, and there's a wealth of information about style design at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ and tools (such as a
> deployable Docker "tile design" instance) that can be used to get you
> started quickly.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> * https://switch2osm.org/manually-building-a-tile-server-18-04-lts/
> ** https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag


On 09/06/18 01:32, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:


8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com
:

In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show
'forestry' as a land use rather than asserting 'every square
metre of this polygon is covered with trees.'


I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on
general purpose map.

The "No. You can't have that." answer, as predicted. But I strongly 
disagree.


Let me take a step back.

I'm chiefly concerned with how I ought to be tagging objects for which 
I maintain imports. I simply want to have some tagging available that 
will neither sacrifice rendering nor incur the wrath of the ontologists.


Among these are some areas that have titles like 'State Forest'. They 
are well delineated. They are signed. While they lack developed 
facilities for recreation (typically limited to some blazed trails, 
some unpaved parking, and perhaps a notice board and register book at 
a trailhead), they offer many recreational opportunities for hikers, 
cyclists, equestrians, skiers, snowshoers, snowmobilists, canoeists, 
bird watchers, hunters, trappers and fisherfolk. They are open to the 
public, in general, whenever active harvesting is not in progress and 
the area is not newly planted for reforestation. They are at present 
tagged 'boundary=protected_area' with a protection class corresponding 
to the regulatory regime in effect for a given area.


They are not parks, and surely not national parks, but they occupy a 
similar space in the public consciousness, because of the recreational 
opportunities they offer. According to the Wiki description, 
'leisure=park' is clearly wrong - it envisions considerably more 
developed facilities than a patch of woodland. Still, the general 
public would surely expect that a map would include them - just as it 
includes parks.


They are currently tagged redundantly. The tag that they all share is 
'leisure=nature_reserve'. The term is not quite correct but it is 
nearly infinitely elastic. Since they are created to conserve land for 
sustainable forestry, they do have the conservation of nature as at 
least one objective. In my region there's a pretty broad consensus 
that it's the 'least worst' tagging that still renders.


They are also tagged 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=6'. This 
may be inaccurate, but these areas are listed as such on the IUCN site 
as well as OSM. At present some are also incorrectly marked 
'landuse=forest', partly because when the import was performed, the 
Wiki happened to be in a state where it described the tag as meaning 
'land managed for forestry', and the import followed the Wiki advice. 
Nobody raised the issue on talk-us or imports when the import was 
discussed.


The key aspect that makes the general public expect to see these areas 
rendered is the public recreational use. Nevertheless, that is a 
secondary use - the primary land use is that these areas are 
productive forests.


Because many of the areas are large, they comprise ponds, mud flats, 
meadows, scrub and shrub, alder thickets - nearly the entire ecologic 
succession. Many of the ponds are cyclic and may in a few decades be 
woodland again, depending on where the beavers take up residence next. 
Even without human intervention, the land cover is not stable. Modern 
management does not attempt to extirpate the beaver (as it did a 
century ago!) but instead recognizes this as a key process in 
rebuilding the soil, preventing flooding and erosion, and supporting 
needed biodiversity. Hence, the entire area is not 'natural=wood' nor 
'landcover=trees'. It has varied landcover that I generally map only 
for specific projects such as large-scale trail maps. Instead, I rely 
on third-party datasets based on multi-band and multi-season satellite 
imagery to identify the ecozones.


So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these 
areas, which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important 
to the public? What is the best strategy for keeping these areas 
rendered in the short term while still describing them correctly so 
that future rendering improvements can exploit the mapped information?


I ask this question about once a year - and every time, a significant 
fraction of respondents give me answers that amount to, "You can't 
have that because it doesn't fit the ontology," or "You shouldn't want 
to render that because so few people are interested in that sort of 
primitive outdoor recreation", or "the fact that the land use follows 
a property line makes it parcel data, and we don't do cadastral 
information", or any number of other answers that dismiss the question 
rather than trying to answer it.


I don't care what the 'correct' tagging is. I simply get tired of 
hearing that everything I try is 'incorrect.' or that fea

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging


On 08/06/18 23:51, Leo Gaspard wrote:


On 06/08/2018 02:37 PM, Jeroen Hoek wrote:

On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote:

   * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees
   * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees


The problem here is that I have use the tag landuse=forest to mark areas that 
are used to produce lumber that is used to make hoses etc.

As such it is not always covered with trees ..as they have been harvested. New 
trees will be planted and appear over time for the cycle to repeat.

But these areas that I have tagged landuse=forest would be incorrect to have 
the tag landcover=trees all the time.


Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=forest imply
landcover=trees instead? It seems like a sensible default (similar to
how access=yes is the default for access to generic highways such as
highway=unclassified). Any exceptions can be explicitly mapped.

This is similar to how landuse=grass (when used to indicate an area that
is used to grow grass) would imply landcover=grass.

That's a possibility indeed, but then all tools that make use of the OSM
database must add this implication.

With ~70500 keys currently on taginfo, I don't think it's reasonable to
say all tools should support all implications, and keeping implications
to a minimum sounds like a worthy goal. Having implications for eg.
access=* makes sense, because there is no other usable logical use of them.

On the other hand, once a mass-retag would have been made that adds
landcover=trees to landuse=forest, the landuse=forest use could be
deprecated and would naturally slowly phase-out, thus simplifying the
database.


natural=wood can be phased out to landcover=trees.

But landuse=forest phased out ... where then is the landuse for the areas that 
produce the lumber that goes to make houses? Furniture?

Will landuse=foretry be the new landuse=forest .. and that then be misused as 
landuse=forest is?



Basically, having an open tagging scheme makes sense for quick
development or tagging new things. I'm not saying it should be removed.
But once something becomes a “recognized” use case (as “this place is
covered with trees” is, currently handled by natural=wood or
landuse=forest), I think it would make sense to at least attempt to
“normalize” them. Potentially including mass-retags to map
previously-used tags to the standardized version.


And there lies the problem. The missing understanding that landuse is to 
signify the human use of that area,
not what covers the land, not what buildings are there or not there .. but the 
use of it.
Thus landuse=military can be a dockyard, an area of trees and/or a group of 
buildings... the use of the land is by and for the military.
Use.



Then again, I'm so new to OSM that you can consider this an outsider's
opinion who just thinks that the database is way more scattered than it
needs to be, and this makes tool development harder to make complete,
thus weakening the ecosystem when each tool supports a slightly
different set of tags.




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

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

I would not support "blind" mass retagging. There is too much specific use
of landuse and natural which should remain as it is, until mappers judge
differently because of what's on the ground.

In my neighbourhood, a lot of landuse=forest is actual maintained and
managed forest. No need to specify landcover=trees there, because it is a
(most of the time small, but hey, everything here is small) .

If the landcover thing pulls through, I would retag only patches marked as
landuse forest which are on larger areas with an actual landuse like
residential or industrial. Even then, I would rather have a tool allowing
me to check/uncheck candidates, then retag only the ones I checked, as one
changeset that can be reverted if need be.

2018-06-09 0:26 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 08/06/18 23:51, Leo Gaspard wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2018 02:37 PM, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
>>
>>> On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote:
>>>
* for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees
* for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees

>>>
> The problem here is that I have use the tag landuse=forest to mark areas
> that are used to produce lumber that is used to make hoses etc.
>
> As such it is not always covered with trees ..as they have been harvested.
> New trees will be planted and appear over time for the cycle to repeat.
>
> But these areas that I have tagged landuse=forest would be incorrect to
> have the tag landcover=trees all the time.
>
> Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=forest imply
>>> landcover=trees instead? It seems like a sensible default (similar to
>>> how access=yes is the default for access to generic highways such as
>>> highway=unclassified). Any exceptions can be explicitly mapped.
>>>
>>> This is similar to how landuse=grass (when used to indicate an area that
>>> is used to grow grass) would imply landcover=grass.
>>>
>> That's a possibility indeed, but then all tools that make use of the OSM
>> database must add this implication.
>>
>> With ~70500 keys currently on taginfo, I don't think it's reasonable to
>> say all tools should support all implications, and keeping implications
>> to a minimum sounds like a worthy goal. Having implications for eg.
>> access=* makes sense, because there is no other usable logical use of
>> them.
>>
>> On the other hand, once a mass-retag would have been made that adds
>> landcover=trees to landuse=forest, the landuse=forest use could be
>> deprecated and would naturally slowly phase-out, thus simplifying the
>> database.
>>
>
> natural=wood can be phased out to landcover=trees.
>
> But landuse=forest phased out ... where then is the landuse for the areas
> that produce the lumber that goes to make houses? Furniture?
>
> Will landuse=foretry be the new landuse=forest .. and that then be misused
> as landuse=forest is?
>
>
>> Basically, having an open tagging scheme makes sense for quick
>> development or tagging new things. I'm not saying it should be removed.
>> But once something becomes a “recognized” use case (as “this place is
>> covered with trees” is, currently handled by natural=wood or
>> landuse=forest), I think it would make sense to at least attempt to
>> “normalize” them. Potentially including mass-retags to map
>> previously-used tags to the standardized version.
>>
>
> And there lies the problem. The missing understanding that landuse is to
> signify the human use of that area,
> not what covers the land, not what buildings are there or not there .. but
> the use of it.
> Thus landuse=military can be a dockyard, an area of trees and/or a group
> of buildings... the use of the land is by and for the military.
> Use.
>
>
>
>> Then again, I'm so new to OSM that you can consider this an outsider's
>> opinion who just thinks that the database is way more scattered than it
>> needs to be, and this makes tool development harder to make complete,
>> thus weakening the ecosystem when each tool supports a slightly
>> different set of tags.
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

2018-06-08 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On 8 June 2018 at 21:01,  wrote:

> I agree that the 5 different values shown on the wiki describe distinctly
> different things and should all be retained.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Harvey 
> *Sent:* Friday, 8 June 2018 20:41
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards
>
>
>
> I strongly disagree that they are the same, they are used to map different
> things
>

Thanks, everyone, that's fine - keep it as 5 separate definitions, but, I
would think, all rendered the same ie  life ring?

For my own benefit though - lifeguard=place https://wiki.
openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dlifeguard_place. Do those poor
sod's take their chairs down the beach & sit, extremely uncomfortably,
behind a woefully inadequate windbreak :-) *in the same spot* every day?

Our lifeguards do sit in their 4wd cars on the beach every day, but they
can position themselves anywhere over a several 00 m stretch, depending on
beach & surf conditions, & where the safest swimming spot is that day, so
they couldn't be mapped as a lifeguard=place.

> "should be rendered" -> do you mean on the default OpenStreetMap style?
> Did you want to open a ticket on the stylesheet issue tracker
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/
> issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+lifeguard
>
>
I thought that that was what I was doing, but obviously not? To (mis-)
quote Oddball "I don't know how it works, I just use it"! :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards