Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2018, at 09:27, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> Another idea i see is to extend the current tagging scheme with
> landuse=basin (+ content=sewage) by creating new basin=* values
> basin=clarifier and basin=digester.


landuse for tagging features is not a good fit, I prefer man_made for these, as 
it fits better with the general scheme of tags


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=crossing used on ways

[yo paseopor]

I would use side=left/right/both as I use for mark the position of a
traffic sign. This position is relative to the direction the way was drawn
in OSM (like rivers)

yopaseopor

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:17 PM André Pirard 
wrote:

> On 2018-10-13 11:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> 12. Oct 2018 09:25 by gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com:
>
> In November 2015 I fix nearly all such ways, since then the number
> increased again to 488. I don't know about iD, but JOSM prints a warning
> when you use this tagging, still many edits were made with JOSM. I wonder
> if that means that we should accept highway=crossing as a shortcut for
> highway=footway + footway=crossing?
>
> I once opened a thread saying that the term "crossing" is contradictory
> with "passage pour piétons".
> The English term restrictively suggests being perpendicular to the road
> and is tagged on a node.
> The French concept covers zebras that are drawn on & along -- e.g. half of
> -- the road, is tagged on the highway on which the passage runs, and they
> do exist. Unanswered problem: how to tag which side of the road the paint
> is on.
> That feature meaning a place where pedestrians can walk safely, even a
> full area applies.
>
> The answers were typical of "tagging for the renderer", e.g. disguising
> sidewalks as being on the road.
>
> How do we tag that without being "fixed"?
>
> All the best,
>
> André.
> ___
> 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] Wastewater Plants

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 02:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> I would actually call them tanks rather than basins

Doesn't a tank need to be closed?

> When you look at storage_tanks 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank, there are 
> actually sub-tags for
> content=sewage & content=wastewater, a so it would seem to be OK to use that?

Just because it's in use doesn't mean it makes sense, does it? See
landuse=basin.

> These could also be used with Clifford's possible wastewater= key?

You mean wastewater=clarifier|digester? I think so.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 08:14, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> landuse for tagging features is not a good fit, I prefer man_made for these, 
> as it fits better with the general scheme of tags

I agree. This is why i proposed man_made=basin|tank in a later message.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

[bkil]

Yes, thank you for the quote, that is what I was referring to.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:40 PM SelfishSeahorse
 wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 21:24, bkil  wrote:
> >
> > crossing=uncontrolled had just this meaning - not controlled or
> > arranged by any device but instead always negotiated in situ between
> > traffic participants. [...]
> >
> > It should definitely not be understood as a synonym for "unmarked".
> > I'll try to clarify this one on the wiki.
> >
> > The top web search result also confirms this interpretation of 
> > "uncontrolled":
> >
> > http://www.apwa-mn.org/userfiles/ckfiles/files/SafetyConsiderationsUncontrolledPedestrianCrossings.pdf
>
> Quoting from this document:
>
> 'Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crossings at Uncontrolled
> Locations / At uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations, installing
> marked crosswalks should not be regarded as a magic cure for
> pedestrian safety problems.'
>
> An uncontrolled crossing just means a crossing without traffic lights,
> thus, it can also be an unmarked crossing.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> ___
> 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] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2018, at 02:27, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
>A) towers that are more than for antennas, like Tokyo, Killesberg,
>Eiffel, and other similar things that aren't really buildings but
>which have a significant purpose beyond holding an antenna up high


I would see the building property as orthogonal, a tower may also be a 
building, e.g. this one is a tower and a building in my reading:

http://img.fotocommunity.com/der-rossbergturm-4-618cda5f-e616-4b48-9fc1-432e3220ccc0.jpg?width=1000


also bell towers often are buildings, as are the monumental and accessible tv 
towers. Also this one is an example for a building (and also a water tower): 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/f/f1/2012-07-19_Roma_EUR_Fungo_(torre_serbatoio).jpg
(has a restaurant below the tank)

Although it is not very high, I would call this one a building and a tower too: 
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einsteinturm_7443.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
(it was built for scientific research)


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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2018, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> OK, but can you translate all of that into a very simple one-line description 
> that a non-engineer layman, looking at an aerial photo, can say Yep, I'll 
> call this one a man_made=mast, but this one over here is a man_made=tower? :-)


read wikipedia with a grain of salt, there are different engineering 
definitions for these terms, according to the field of endeavor and the country.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 5:48 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:

[...]

> d) diplomatic=* would include only [embassy, consulate, other], with
> "other" covering anomalies without status under the VCDR or VCCR (e.g.,
> AIT, TECRO, and subnational representations);
>

> e) further refining of the type of facility would be apparent in the
> name=* tag, obviating the need for additional subtags; and
>
[,,,]

It depends.  Are all of the facilities that would be tagged as "other" sui
generis or do some of them
fall into specific categories?  If there are specific categories that some
of them fall under, then
giving them their own values instead of other would be sensible.

Tag values are cheap and promote consistency.  Consider somebody wanting to
use overpass-turbo
to find a particular type of diplomatic facility.  A search for
diplomatic="fubar" is a nice, easy query.  A
search for diplomatic="other" and name~"fubar" works if you're sure the
name is going to contain
"fubar" somewhere within it.  If you don't know in advance what the name is
then with only
diplomatic=other you're not going to be able to narrow it down to a
specific category of other (if
specific categories of other exist).

OTOH, if "trade missions," "liaison offices," "interests sections," and the
like are merely marketing
terms for "I can't believe it's not an embassy" then "other" suffices.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 14:23, François Lacombe
 wrote:
>
> structure={lattice,guyed, tube...} would be better than tower:construction. 
> 15k uses vs 150k.
> Lattice is the structure and have nothing to do with actual construction. 
> This tag should be avoided.

Seems sensible.

> telecom=antenna would be a device, wile we are discussion of supports.
> It's the same for power=transformers (a device) supported by a power=pole (a 
> support). Using power=* for both support and device cause small issues 
> because power=* is used for the support.

If there are antennas attached to something else, e.g. mobile phone
and microwave relay antennas attached to an electricity pylon, [1] you
could simply add

communication:mobile_phone=yes
communication:microwave=yes

to

power=tower.

[1]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/eJ8dwz4EJ8hRSJPO1gRKEg

> telecom=antenna may be used to tag individual antennas on large towers too.

There's also man_made=antenna (with 6, 420 uses vs 167 uses of telecom=antenna):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dantenna

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi Lionel

Thanks for this helpful clarification! I'd suggest to use them on OSM.

Regards
Markus

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Lionel Giard  wrote:
>
> At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile 
> structure construction :
> - Self-supported pylons (the "tower", mostly looking like the power=tower in 
> OSM, but also including the (older) self-supported tower in concrete) ;
> - Guy-wired pylons (the "mast" as described in the engineering definition 
> where it is a structure held by guys);
> - Self-supported roof structure (half of them are just simple antennas, the 
> other half are mast (the larger structure that clearly hold more than 1 
> antenna on top of buildings));
> - Guy-wired roof structure (all of them are mast);
> - And some other things like on electricity pylons(all of them are just 
> antennas on top of something as far as i know).
>
> And as a sub-type (indicating type of construction) : we got the "lattice 
> pylon", "tubular pylon", "lattice mast", "tubular mast" or just "tubes" (for 
> antennas isolated). So it would correspond to the 
> tower:construction=guyed_lattice or guyed_tube (for mast) and lattice or 
> freestanding (for the tower). Note that the older concrete telecom tower is 
> noted as "tubular pylon".
>
> Thus, as i see it, the tower tag is the equivalent of pylon (as in the 
> power=* tag where the power=tower is the equivalent of what we call 
> "electricity pylon" here) and the mast are either the guy-wired structures OR 
> the "largest" structures on the roof of buildings (which are clearly not an 
> unique antenna). And then we need a tag for isolated antenna (i saw that a 
> "telecom=antenna" was proposed on the telecom wiki page and i used it some 
> times, but that's just a tag to indicate either on a node (on top of a 
> building) or on another structure (like power=tower) that a telecom antenna 
> is there. So to me, this covers everything i see in our database.
>
> If we use the current definition, the only problem i see is for the 
> "self-supported pylons" which should all be tagged as tower (on engineering 
> terminology), but could currently be tagged as mast if they don't look like 
> "big tower". But the problem is minor, as if you look at the tag 
> "tower:construction", the "guyed_lattice" and "guyed_tube" already say that 
> it is a 'mast' in the engineering definition (and as far as i know, all masts 
> are either guyed_lattice or guyed_tube construction !). ;-)
>
> => And thus, the only change i would make is to the sub-tag 
> tower:construction : using "lattice" or "tube" for the "freestanding" towers 
> (the freestanding value is more general but give not much information as if 
> it is not guyed, i think it is always freestanding). So at the end, the 
> engineering definition is clearly indicated via this tag.
>
> Best regards,
> Lionel
>
> Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer  a 
> écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>>
>> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
>> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
>> contentious and/or confusing.
>>
>>
>>
>> what about this: 
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Killesberg_Tower.jpg
>>
>> Actual tagging is even more weird, or does anyone recognize a mansard roof 
>> here?
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306362151
>>
>> this is not a building, neither by the German nor by the English definition, 
>> but at least for Germans it is a tower.
>> I would not require for towers to be a building (which at a minimum should 
>> provide some enclosed space).
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 02:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> US law does not apply everywhere.

Yes, it doesn't. Besides the USA don't recognise database right;
apparently it's mainly used in the EU.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

Please let me clarify.  The three categories [embassy, consulate, other]
are based on their status as diplomatic missions as defined by
international law, which is how governments look at them, label them,
and relate to them.  Within those categories functional differences can
and often do exist, which I believe is the question you raised below.

Let's posit a hypothetical analogy using dessert shops:

primary key is shop=*
  shop=[dessert, ...]
    dessert=[pastry, frozen, pudding]
   pastry=[cake, cookie, tart, pie, biscuit]
  cake=[chocolate, Black Forest, ...]
  ...
   frozen=[ice cream, frozen custard, frozen yogurt, sherbet]
  ice cream=[chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, neapolitan, cookie
dough, mango, raspberry swirl, ...]
  ...
   pudding=[gelatin, custard, mousse]
  gelatin=[strawberry, lemon, orange, ...]
  custard=[chocolate, tapioca, lemon, ...]
  mousse=[chocolate, raspberry, mango, ...]
   
(Sorry, Hallowe'en is coming so I'm distracted by thoughts of sweets.)

At this point we begin to proliferate pretty seriously:  is chocolate
ice cream so different from vanilla that it deserves its own value, so
we can tag the shop accurately?  Do we even need to specify the types of
frozen desserts in a tag?  These are all good questions, especially if
you have a sweet tooth as I do, but if a user wants to run an overpass
turbo job to find all shops serving strawberry frozen custard, that user
will not likely find that level of detail in OSM.  We need to decide
what level of detail we can reasonably expect to be maintained by a
volunteer community while also providing an adequate level of
information to our users.

Now let's shift back to the proposal of diplomatic=[embassy, consulate,
other], and start by addressing your specific examples: "trade mission,"
"liaison office," "interests section".  A trade mission (aka "trade
commissioner", "commercial office", "trade representative") can be part
of any of the three categories; it is not accredited separately. 
Assuming we intend to adopt the diplomatic=* tag as a primary tag, a
trade mission could be tagged diplomatic=embassy, consulate, or other,
depending on its diplomatic status.  An interests section is probably
best tagged as diplomatic=embassy since it enjoys diplomatic privileges
under the VCDR.  A liaison office, on the other hand, may or may not
enjoy diplomatic privileges but if it does, it is only on the basis of a
bilateral agreement, not under the VCDR, so on reflection it should
probably be tagged diplomatic=other (see the Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_embassy). 

To me there are three and only three secondary tags: pastry, frozen,
pudding, er, sorry, embassy, consulate, other.  The rules for tagging at
this level would be determined by what treaty applies: the VCDR or other
multilateral international treaty such as the UN Charter
(diplomatic=embassy), VCCR (diplomatic=consulate), or only a special
bilateral agreement that may or may not confer immunities
(diplomatic=other).

Now, are there sui generis names of diplomatic facilities?  Yes.  For
example, Libya used to call its embassies "people's bureaus".  When the
Soviet Union was formed, it stopped calling its chief diplomats
ambassadors, and for ideological reasons (traditional diplomatic titles
were considered bourgeois) said its diplomatic missions were staffed by
"polpreds" (plenipotentiary representatives) and its missions were now
called "polpredstvo".  After a few years of being always at the bottom
of every diplomatic list, the Soviets resumed normal diplomatic
nomenclature.  How much do we care about ideological labeling of an
embassy that enjoys protection under the VCDR?  They were embassies,
pure and simple.

So, let's pretend we're taking the example of the dessert shop and
applying it to the proposed diplomatic=* primary tag.  Here is a
possible permutation:

primary key is diplomatic=*
  diplomatic=[embassy, consulate, other]
  embassy=[chancery, branch office, nunciature, interests section,
residence, trade office, high commission, mission, legation, cultural
center, assistance office, ...]
      consulate=[consulate, consulate general, consular agency, consular
office, honorary consul]
      other=[liaison office, representative office, subnational, trade
office, cultural center, assistance office, ...]

N.B. that the tertiary tags now begin to overlap the name=* tag, and it
is my understanding that duplication of information is generally frowned
upon in OSM--please correct me if that impression is incorrect. That
said, if our hypothetical user wants to pull out all cultural centers or
U.S. state rep offices in a country by tag value, it would be possible. 
Note also that we are also mixing apples and oranges here, as
"nunciature" is simply a different name for an embassy, as is "high
commission", whereas cultural centers and trade offices located
separately from the c

[Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Based on my understanding of term "commercial ara" and how landuse tagging is 
used in OSMI think that area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas fits 
landuse=commercial.
But I want to confirm that before 
editinghttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial 

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

Re: [Tagging] Types of cranes?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. Oct 2018 03:34 by graemefi...@gmail.com :


> Couldn't they be mapped, perhaps with a Fix Me, to remove the crane tag when 
> work is completed? 




Only if mapper who mapped this will resurvey location regularly and keep it 
updated.

And even then I have big doubts whatever it is OK.
Also, fixme tag should indicate what currently needs to be fixed. Do we have 
schemeto mark 
fixme activating on the specific date?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Telecom local networks

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

I'm pleased to announce the end of the vote for Telecom Local Loops
networks proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop

27 yes votes make it approved and clean-up process will begin shortly.
According to wiki profiles, 7 different countries were involved in the
review.


Thank you everyone for time spent on making comments and vote, all the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 02:32, Allan Mustard  wrote:

>
> * The USAID office is part of the American Embassy but is in a separate
> office flat in a building across town, so would be a node tagged
> diplomatic=embassy, embassy=assistance office.
> * The Turkish counterpart, TIFA, does not enjoy diplomatic status so would
> be tagged diplomatic=other, other=assistance office.
> * The Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be diplomatic=other,
> other=trade office because it is accorded diplomatic status by bilateral
> agreement, not the VCDR (there is no Libyan Embassy here).
> * The American Center would be a node in an office building tagged
> diplomatic=embassy, embassy=cultural center, while the Iranian Cultural
> Center would be a building with the same tags, since both enjoy diplomatic
> status as sections of their respective embassies.
> * The Russian Consulate General has its own building and grounds separate
> from the embassy, so would be an enclosed way tagged as
> diplomatic=consulate, consulate=consulate general.
>

Thank you for a very detailed, very interesting post, Allan.

One question, please.

Is there any way that a layman such as myself would know that "The Libyan
Economic Cooperation Bureau would be diplomatic=other, other=trade office
because it is accorded diplomatic status by bilateral agreement, not the
VCDR", or is this sort of thing only known to Govt / diplomatic staff?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 07:32, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Based on my understanding of term "commercial ara" and how landuse tagging
> is used in OSM
> I think that area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas fits
> landuse=commercial.
>

I would have thought that it would be =retail rather than =commercial?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28. Oct 2018 23:14 by graemefi...@gmail.com :


> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 07:32, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>   >> Based on my understanding of term "commercial ara" and how 
>> landuse tagging is used in OSM>> I think that area with restaurants, hotels, 
>> cinemas fits landuse=commercial.
>
> I would have thought that it would be =retail rather than =commercial?




I can see that for restaurants (see recent discussion that recommended 
building=retail

or building=shop for buildings constructed as a restaurant).




But are you sure that retail is better than commercial for hotels and cinemas?

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 28.10.2018 o 23:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick pisze:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 07:32, Mateusz Konieczny
> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
>
> Based on my understanding of term "commercial ara" and how landuse
> tagging is used in OSM
> I think that area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas fits
> landuse=commercial.
>
>
> I would have thought that it would be =retail rather than =commercial?


I also think so - when we have two similar landuses, we should use the
one which is more specific:

1. "Commercial" landuse has been defined more general, as if it was
"offices" mainly, but also including sale:

"Commercial landuse mainly deals with services and trade (tertiary
sector ).
Such area may consists of offices, administration, laboratories,
warehouses (logistics park), car repair stations and their associated
infrastructure (car parks, service roads, lawns and so-on)."

2. Unfortunately retail is similar, but mainly about sale:

"Predominantly shops and their associated infrastructure (car parks,
service roads, lawns and so-on)."


-- 
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]

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

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[marc marc]

Le 28. 10. 18 à 02:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
>> (I know that there is man_made=storage_tank

it's a 2-in-1 tag :
man_made=tank + usage=storage
because if the same tank is used for wastewater,
it 'll look the same, only the usage change.
and using man_made=storage_tank for a not-a-storage tank is strange

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:28 AM SelfishSeahorse wrote:

> basin=clarifier and basin=digester. 
man_made=tank + usage=clarifier or usage=digester
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 08:26, Daniel Koć  wrote:

> "Commercial landuse mainly deals with services and trade (tertiary sector
> ). Such area
> may consists of offices, administration, laboratories, warehouses
> (logistics park), car repair stations and their associated infrastructure
> (car parks, service roads, lawns and so-on)."
>

Not too sure why "car repair stations" would be included in that list
though, when you have shop=car_repair, which strikes me as either retail or
maybe industrial?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Dave Swarthout]

Okay, next question.

I added the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge to OSM yesterday . (I
don't do much mapping in Texas but that place is special because I once did
a water quality assessment there as a volunteer.) It's a fairly large
multipolygon and the main relation holds the bulk of the refuge territory.
However, there are scattered about several other areas, some of which are
also multipolygons, that are part of the refuge.

Simple areas can be easily included as "outers" in the main relation (Rel
ID:885828). But what about other pieces that are multipolygons? I could
simply add them as separate relations with identical tags but handling such
areas that are connected administratively but not physically would seem to
be one reason multipolygons were invented. But I'm thinking there must be a
more elegant method. And what about inner areas that are also
multipolygons? This case cannot be handled by my simplistic approach.

How should I deal with this?

Thanks in advance,

Dave

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:07 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> 26. Oct 2018 11:52 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Thanks, That helps a lot. I don't work with routes (yet) but it when I'm
>> adding inners to riverbank multipolygons I always add them in the order
>> they would appear if you were traveling downstream. It just makes sense to
>> me although there's probably no programmatic reason to do it.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:55 AM Mateusz Konieczny <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
> > Order of elements is saved in OSM database.
>
> That appears to be the answer to a different question.
>
> The 'sort' operation in the JOSM relation editor changes the order of the
> elements. If the layer is uploaded, the new order of elements, as produced
> by the 'sort' operation, will replace the old order in the OSM database.
>
> This is usually what I want with a multipolygon. With a route, I find
> myself undoing or further altering a 'sort' operation much more often,
> because there are often things about routes that JOSM doesn't get quite
> right. (Example - a dual carriageway where both ways end in link elements
> looks as if the route has floating endpoints, and the sort operation messes
> up one of the directions.) Even there, though, the 'sort' is usually Pretty
> Close to right, and is often usable as a starting point. Moreover, I'm not
> sure that it can be improved. The topology of a route isn't always quite
> right in the field, and some of 'getting it better' amount to 'read the
> mapper's mind,' something computers are ordinarily not well equipped to do.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

Here are some rules of thumb:

* If it displays a sign reading "embassy", "high commission",
"nunciature", or "interests section", it is a safe bet that it should be
tagged "embassy".

* If the sending side has made loud public pronouncements and published
widely that its embassies are now called "people's bureaus" or some
other formulation, it can be safely tagged "embassy".

* If it has a sign on it that says "consulate", it is a consulate, and
the sign will specify what flavor of consulate.

After that it is safest to ask somebody at the institution in question
whether it is part of the embassy or consulate (like my American Center)
or not (like TIFA), though status can sometimes be divined by reading
the institution's website. If all else fails, check the host country's
diplomatic list and see if the chief of mission is on it.  If s/he is
not listed, the institution is not diplomatic (diplomatic=other).  If
s/he is listed but has a non-diplomatic title (e.g., "director" or
"coordinator" as opposed to "ambassador", "charge d'affaires",
"minister", "counselor", "first/second/third secretary", or "attache")
the mission is pretty clearly not under the VCDR (diplomatic=other). 
Here we walk a fine line.  TIFA is an agency of the Turkish government,
hence diplomatic=other.  American Councils, which operates our American
Corners in Turkmenistan, is an NGO operating under contract with the
U.S. government, so our American Corners are not diplomatic, but rather
NGO offices (office=ngo). Parsing all of this constitutes a good excuse
to recruit diplomats to OSM to help with mapping :-)

Two more examples and I'll stop--I can hear the eyes rolling all the way
from Ashgabat:

* The Apostolic Nunciature in Ashgabat is headed most of the time by a
charge d'affaires because the nuncio is resident in Ankara and only
visits periodically.  The charge d'affaires is nominally the "cultural
attache".  Since it is a nunciature, we know it is under the VCDR.

* The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Asian
Development Bank, and the United Nations missions in Ashgabat (there are
two) enjoy diplomatic status under the Bretton Woods arrangement (the
banks) and the UN Charter.  Technically that makes the EBRD and ADB
diplomatic missions, but we tag them as banks, not as embassies (under
the new construct we might however tag them diplomatic=other in addition
to tagging them as banks).  The lead UN Mission, in a new construct with
diplomatic=* as a primary tag, would be tagged diplomatic=other since
its head is called "resident coordinator" and the UN Mission is covered
by the UN Charter, not the VCDR. 

Would the lay person know all this?  Not until reading the wiki articles
we will need to compose if a primary diplomatic=* tag is adopted. 
Sometimes it is not completely obvious and you have to do a little
research. 

On 10/29/2018 3:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 02:32, Allan Mustard  > wrote:
>
>
> * The USAID office is part of the American Embassy but is in a
> separate office flat in a building across town, so would be a node
> tagged diplomatic=embassy, embassy=assistance office. 
> * The Turkish counterpart, TIFA, does not enjoy diplomatic status
> so would be tagged diplomatic=other, other=assistance office.
> * The Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be
> diplomatic=other, other=trade office because it is accorded
> diplomatic status by bilateral agreement, not the VCDR (there is
> no Libyan Embassy here). 
> * The American Center would be a node in an office building tagged
> diplomatic=embassy, embassy=cultural center, while the Iranian
> Cultural Center would be a building with the same tags, since both
> enjoy diplomatic status as sections of their respective embassies. 
> * The Russian Consulate General has its own building and grounds
> separate from the embassy, so would be an enclosed way tagged as
> diplomatic=consulate, consulate=consulate general.   
>
>
> Thank you for a very detailed, very interesting post, Allan.
>
> One question, please.
>
> Is there any way that a layman such as myself would know that "The
> Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be diplomatic=other,
> other=trade office because it is accorded diplomatic status by
> bilateral agreement, not the VCDR", or is this sort of thing only
> known to Govt / diplomatic staff?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme 

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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Joseph Eisenberg]

You can make any number of relation members with role “inner”. So if the
refuge has outlying areas which have a hole in them, the way(s) around the
outside are role=outer and the way(s) around the hole are role=inner.

It really is “multipolygon”: as many polygons as you want, with as many
holes and donut shapes as you need.

-Joseph
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Okay, next question.
>
> I added the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge to OSM yesterday . (I
> don't do much mapping in Texas but that place is special because I once did
> a water quality assessment there as a volunteer.) It's a fairly large
> multipolygon and the main relation holds the bulk of the refuge territory.
> However, there are scattered about several other areas, some of which are
> also multipolygons, that are part of the refuge.
>
> Simple areas can be easily included as "outers" in the main relation (Rel
> ID:885828). But what about other pieces that are multipolygons? I could
> simply add them as separate relations with identical tags but handling such
> areas that are connected administratively but not physically would seem to
> be one reason multipolygons were invented. But I'm thinking there must be a
> more elegant method. And what about inner areas that are also
> multipolygons? This case cannot be handled by my simplistic approach.
>
> How should I deal with this?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:07 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> 26. Oct 2018 11:52 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
>>>
>>> Thanks, That helps a lot. I don't work with routes (yet) but it when I'm
>>> adding inners to riverbank multipolygons I always add them in the order
>>> they would appear if you were traveling downstream. It just makes sense to
>>> me although there's probably no programmatic reason to do it.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:55 AM Mateusz Konieczny <
>> matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
>> > Order of elements is saved in OSM database.
>>
>> That appears to be the answer to a different question.
>>
>> The 'sort' operation in the JOSM relation editor changes the order of the
>> elements. If the layer is uploaded, the new order of elements, as produced
>> by the 'sort' operation, will replace the old order in the OSM database.
>>
>> This is usually what I want with a multipolygon. With a route, I find
>> myself undoing or further altering a 'sort' operation much more often,
>> because there are often things about routes that JOSM doesn't get quite
>> right. (Example - a dual carriageway where both ways end in link elements
>> looks as if the route has floating endpoints, and the sort operation messes
>> up one of the directions.) Even there, though, the 'sort' is usually Pretty
>> Close to right, and is often usable as a starting point. Moreover, I'm not
>> sure that it can be improved. The topology of a route isn't always quite
>> right in the field, and some of 'getting it better' amount to 'read the
>> mapper's mind,' something computers are ordinarily not well equipped to do.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Okay, next question.
>
> I added the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge to OSM yesterday . (I
> don't do much mapping in Texas but that place is special because I once did
> a water quality assessment there as a volunteer.) It's a fairly large
> multipolygon and the main relation holds the bulk of the refuge territory.
> However, there are scattered about several other areas, some of which are
> also multipolygons, that are part of the refuge.
>
> Simple areas can be easily included as "outers" in the main relation (Rel
> ID:885828). But what about other pieces that are multipolygons? I could
> simply add them as separate relations with identical tags but handling such
> areas that are connected administratively but not physically would seem to
> be one reason multipolygons were invented. But I'm thinking there must be a
> more elegant method. And what about inner areas that are also
> multipolygons? This case cannot be handled by my simplistic approach.
>

There's nothing wrong with having more than one segmented outer ring.

Have a look at relation 6362971 (use File->Download Object in JOSM) in the
relation editor, and you'll see just such an area, with muiltiple segmented
outer rings, and some of the segmentation is there to have shared ways.  If
you also download 6370357, you'll see how the two relations share some, but
not all, of the ways. Relation 8428216 might also interest you. It's a case
where the same protected area shares multiple, noncontiguous segments with
a lake shore, and multiple, also noncontiguous, segments with an adjacent
protected area.

Way 427547737 is also interesting. It's tagged place=islet (because it
is).  It's an inner way of Lens Lake, and an outer way of Wilcox Lake Wild
Forest. Since the lake is not part of the Wild Forest, but is part of a
private inholding that is completely surrounded by the Wild Forest, its
west shore is an outer way of the lake and an inner way of the Wild
Forest.  And the inner ring to which that way belongs completely surrounds
the islet.

(The shoreline looks wrong in places, but I'm not going to fix it, because
it's way too hard to tell land from water in orthos of beaver swamp.

Because research is needed to find out whether, for instance, a nature
reserve boundary that appears to run along a shoreline actually follows the
shoreline or rather follows some survey line that was the shoreline in
times past, I generally do this sort of conflation only when resolving
conflicts or reimporting a particular boundary, so you'll see a lot of
imported borders up in the Adirondacks that don't use shared ways yet. You
can still use them as examples of how arbitrarily complex the topology can
get.  That Wilcox Lake Wild Forest relation (6360587) to which that islet
belongs is pretty crazy, because it's a ton of small parcels.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging