Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Ephemeral a water property key.

[Warin]

On 13/12/18 12:48, Sergio Manzi wrote:



On 2018-12-13 02:36, Warin wrote:
At the moment developing a system to render seasonal values on 
requires a  determination on spring/summer/autumn/winter etc .. this 
would add some new terms. Not too hard but does add to things. 


Also developing a system to render the ephemeral key would add some 
complexity, probably more...



Not certain about ephemeral being subservient to intermittent.


If it is not there all of the time, than it is intermittent.

If it doesn't last long, than it is ephemeral (/but then it is not 
there all of the time and thus it is intermittent too/).




The primary motivation for me is that a water feature with intermittent 
is more likely to have water, even it I have to dig a meter or two for 
it, than a water feature with ephemeral.


I don't expect a 'normal' map will tell me this. But a desert map should.

I would map the ephemeral river banks/courses.
But then the places where water pools to form more permanent water 
sources I would as natural=water, intermittent=yes. In this way they can 
be distinguished as a more probable source of water.
Some satellite imagery shows these .. but then some shows the area just 
after rain! So it requires some judgements.


I'll add this as a rationale ...




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Ephemeral a water property key.

[Sergio Manzi]

You can do *exactly the same* with my new proposed values for intermittent=*

No need for a new key, I think.

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2018-12-14 00:48, Warin wrote:
> On 13/12/18 12:48, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018-12-13 02:36, Warin wrote:
>>> At the moment developing a system to render seasonal values on requires a  
>>> determination on spring/summer/autumn/winter etc .. this would add some new 
>>> terms. Not too hard but does add to things. 
>>
>> Also developing a system to render the ephemeral key would add some 
>> complexity, probably more...
>>
>>> Not certain about ephemeral being subservient to intermittent.
>>
>> If it is not there all of the time, than it is intermittent.
>>
>> If it doesn't last long, than it is ephemeral (/but then it is not there all 
>> of the time and thus it is intermittent too/).
>>
>
> The primary motivation for me is that a water feature with intermittent is 
> more likely to have water, even it I have to dig a meter or two for it, than 
> a water feature with ephemeral.
>
> I don't expect a 'normal' map will tell me this. But a desert map should.
>
> I would map the ephemeral river banks/courses.
> But then the places where water pools to form more permanent water sources I 
> would as natural=water, intermittent=yes. In this way they can be 
> distinguished as a more probable source of water.
> Some satellite imagery shows these .. but then some shows the area just after 
> rain! So it requires some judgements.
>
> I'll add this as a rationale ...
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Alan McConchie]

The voting period for boundary=aboriginal_lands has now closed, and there were 
45 votes in favor and 7 against, so the tag has now been approved. 

I created the new wiki page for the tag here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands

The map rendering still needs a bit of discussion about colors (to avoid color 
conflict with the same brown used by zoos and theme parks) but this is not the 
place for that conversation. The github issue remains open for debate here: 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3520

So what's next? It now appears that "boundary=aboriginal_lands" is synonymous 
with "boundary=protected_area" + "protect_class=24", and both tagging styles 
have roughly similar usage in the database. I'm curious to see over time 
whether mappers start to use "boundary=aboriginal_lands" more frequently, or if 
people keep using both. Perhaps at some point in the future we can have a 
discussion about whether to deprecate the "boundary=protected_area" + 
"protect_class=24" approach, or if we should just keep supporting both methods 
in simultaneously. But I'm not in a hurry to start that discussion right now.


Thanks to everyone who took part in this discussion and who voted on the 
proposal!

Alan
 

> On Nov 24, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Alan McConchie  wrote:
> 
> The tag boundary=aboriginal_lands has been discussed on-and-off for a long 
> time in OSM. I'd like to raise the topic one last time and hopefully come to 
> some consensus about it.
> 
> The tag proposal on the wiki dates from 2008, but the original proposal was 
> from the user Sam Vekemans (username acrosscanadatrails) who is no longer 
> participating in OpenStreetMap, as far as I can tell. He never moved the 
> proposal to a vote, so the page has remained in the proposal state all this 
> time.
> 
> Here's the proposal: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
> 
> (I've tried to updated the wiki page somewhat, but leaving the discussion 
> intact)
> 
> In the following years, some people have started using that proposed tag, 
> mostly in Canada and somewhat in the United States. 
> 
> Here's the overpass query for boundary=aboriginal_lands: 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV4
> 
> There has also been extensive discussion over the years on the 
> boundary=aboriginal_lands page, and it seems like the consensus is that the 
> tag is necessary and better than any alternatives. But it was never voted on 
> as a proposal.
> 
> In the intervening years, tagging native reservations with 
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24 has also gained popularity. This 
> tag combination seems to be popular in South America, Australia, and also in 
> parts of the United States. I can't find any evidence for why people chose 
> this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears that 
> the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in Brazil 
> however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing 
> leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up on 
> the default renderer with the nature reserve green style.
> 
> Here's the overpass query for protect_class=24: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV5
> 
> Wiki page for boundary=protected_area: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
> 
> In 2014, there were three messages on the tagging mailing list, from Paul 
> Johnson and Clifford Snow. 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/020160.html 
> But at that time, we didn't come any answers.
> 
> There seems to be no argument about whether or not aboriginal areas are 
> important features that should be mapped. The only question is how to tag 
> them.
> 
> So the question is:
> 
> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? Or 
> should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and 
> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
> 
> 
> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for all 
> come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the 
> discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom: 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
> 
> 
> Alan
> 
> 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Ephemeral a water property key.

[Warin]

Thoughts ... (take on  Hobbit like theme - one key to rule them all...)

As both intermittent and seasonal are all render the same .. why not 
combine them into one key as well?



non_perennial=seasonal/intermittent/ephemeral/summer/spring/winter/autumn/intermittent_summer/ephemeral_summer 
etc


I note that intermittent is taken by many as 'I know it is 
non-perennial' so it may be appropriate to have a non_perennial=yes for 
the more common mapping value.


???
Well? Is that a reasonable idea?

It could be implemented as a mechanical edit on
seasonal 1:1.
On intermittent=yes ... as non_perennial=yes with a request to determine 
a more specific value?

On intermittent=/season/ ... as non_perennial=intermittent_/season

/These could coexist with the present tags while people changed over.
//

On 14/12/18 10:58, Sergio Manzi wrote:


You can do *exactly the same* with my new proposed values for 
intermittent=*


No need for a new key, I think.

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2018-12-14 00:48, Warin wrote:

On 13/12/18 12:48, Sergio Manzi wrote:



On 2018-12-13 02:36, Warin wrote:
At the moment developing a system to render seasonal values on 
requires a  determination on spring/summer/autumn/winter etc .. 
this would add some new terms. Not too hard but does add to things. 


Also developing a system to render the ephemeral key would add some 
complexity, probably more...



Not certain about ephemeral being subservient to intermittent.


If it is not there all of the time, than it is intermittent.

If it doesn't last long, than it is ephemeral (/but then it is not 
there all of the time and thus it is intermittent too/).




The primary motivation for me is that a water feature with 
intermittent is more likely to have water, even it I have to dig a 
meter or two for it, than a water feature with ephemeral.


I don't expect a 'normal' map will tell me this. But a desert map 
should.


I would map the ephemeral river banks/courses.
But then the places where water pools to form more permanent water 
sources I would as natural=water, intermittent=yes. In this way they 
can be distinguished as a more probable source of water.
Some satellite imagery shows these .. but then some shows the area 
just after rain! So it requires some judgements.


I'll add this as a rationale ...





___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Ephemeral a water property key.

[Tod Fitch]

I do like the idea of one key to rule them all. But I am uncomfortable with a 
key name which has a negative preface.

At first I wondered about a perennial tag but then the values might be 
difficult. Then it occurred that we are trying to tag the presence of 
something, in this case water. There are only a few things tagged with 
presence=* now [1] and they look unrelated to water. But how about:

presence=perennial/seasonal/intermittent/ephemeral/summer/spring/winter/autumn/ 
etc.

And state that perennial be the default if untagged.

Cheers!

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/presence#values

> On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thoughts ... (take on  Hobbit like theme - one key to rule them all...)
> 
> As both intermittent and seasonal are all render the same .. why not combine 
> them into one key as well?
> 
> 
> non_perennial=seasonal/intermittent/ephemeral/summer/spring/winter/autumn/intermittent_summer/ephemeral_summer
>  etc
> 
> I note that intermittent is taken by many as 'I know it is non-perennial' so 
> it may be appropriate to have a non_perennial=yes for the more common mapping 
> value.
> 
> ???
> Well? Is that a reasonable idea?
> 
> It could be implemented as a mechanical edit on
> seasonal 1:1.
> On intermittent=yes ... as non_perennial=yes with a request to determine a 
> more specific value?
> On intermittent=season ... as non_perennial=intermittent_season
> 
> These could coexist with the present tags while people changed over.
> 
> 
> On 14/12/18 10:58, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>> You can do exactly the same with my new proposed values for intermittent=*
>> 
>> No need for a new key, I think.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Sergio
>> 
>> 
>> On 2018-12-14 00:48, Warin wrote:
>>> On 13/12/18 12:48, Sergio Manzi wrote:
 
 On 2018-12-13 02:36, Warin wrote:
> At the moment developing a system to render seasonal values on requires a 
>  determination on spring/summer/autumn/winter etc .. this would add some 
> new terms. Not too hard but does add to things.
 Also developing a system to render the ephemeral key would add some 
 complexity, probably more...
 
> Not certain about ephemeral being subservient to intermittent.
 If it is not there all of the time, than it is intermittent.
 If it doesn't last long, than it is ephemeral (but then it is not there 
 all of the time and thus it is intermittent too).
 
>>> 
>>> The primary motivation for me is that a water feature with intermittent is 
>>> more likely to have water, even it I have to dig a meter or two for it, 
>>> than a water feature with ephemeral.
>>> 
>>> I don't expect a 'normal' map will tell me this. But a desert map should.
>>> 
>>> I would map the ephemeral river banks/courses.
>>> But then the places where water pools to form more permanent water sources 
>>> I would as natural=water, intermittent=yes. In this way they can be 
>>> distinguished as a more probable source of water.
>>> Some satellite imagery shows these .. but then some shows the area just 
>>> after rain! So it requires some judgements.
>>> 
>>> I'll add this as a rationale ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Ephemeral a water property key.

[Warin]

presence looks to be used with taxi ranks to say when they are expected 
to have taxies present.


There is occurrence .. and that is already in use with occurrence 
=intermittent as part of an import .. excellent!



So
occurrence 
=perennial/non_perennial/seasonal/intermittent/ephemeral/summer/spring/winter/autumn/etc


And of course state that perennial be the default if untagged.

On 14/12/18 13:09, Tod Fitch wrote:
I do like the idea of one key to rule them all. But I am uncomfortable 
with a key name which has a negative preface.


At first I wondered about a perennial tag but then the values might be 
difficult. Then it occurred that we are trying to tag the presence of 
something, in this case water. There are only a few things tagged with 
presence=* now [1] and they look unrelated to water. But how about:


presence=perennial/seasonal/intermittent/ephemeral/summer/spring/winter/autumn/ 
etc.


And state that perennial be the default if untagged.

Cheers!

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/presence#values

On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Thoughts ... (take on Hobbit like theme - one key to rule them all...)

As both intermittent and seasonal are all render the same .. why not 
combine them into one key as well?



non_perennial=seasonal/intermittent/ephemeral/summer/spring/winter/autumn/intermittent_summer/ephemeral_summer 
etc


I note that intermittent is taken by many as 'I know it is 
non-perennial' so it may be appropriate to have a non_perennial=yes 
for the more common mapping value.


???
Well? Is that a reasonable idea?

It could be implemented as a mechanical edit on
seasonal 1:1.
On intermittent=yes ... as non_perennial=yes with a request to 
determine a more specific value?

On intermittent=/season/ ... as non_perennial=intermittent_/season

/These could coexist with the present tags while people changed over.


On 14/12/18 10:58, Sergio Manzi wrote:


You can do *exactly the same* with my new proposed values for 
intermittent=*


No need for a new key, I think.

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2018-12-14 00:48, Warin wrote:

On 13/12/18 12:48, Sergio Manzi wrote:



On 2018-12-13 02:36, Warin wrote:
At the moment developing a system to render seasonal values on 
requires a determination on spring/summer/autumn/winter etc .. 
this would add some new terms. Not too hard but does add to things. 


Also developing a system to render the ephemeral key would add 
some complexity, probably more...



Not certain about ephemeral being subservient to intermittent.


If it is not there all of the time, than it is intermittent.

If it doesn't last long, than it is ephemeral (/but then it is not 
there all of the time and thus it is intermittent too/).




The primary motivation for me is that a water feature with 
intermittent is more likely to have water, even it I have to dig a 
meter or two for it, than a water feature with ephemeral.


I don't expect a 'normal' map will tell me this. But a desert map 
should.


I would map the ephemeral river banks/courses.
But then the places where water pools to form more permanent water 
sources I would as natural=water, intermittent=yes. In this way 
they can be distinguished as a more probable source of water.
Some satellite imagery shows these .. but then some shows the area 
just after rain! So it requires some judgements.


I'll add this as a rationale ...





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





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