Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables)
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > more happy pigs to be found here (supposedly) >>> https://www.naturalpigfarming.com/low%20res%2060/IMG_1385.jpg >>> >> >> And that is a pig pen. But, according to some, also a pig sty. An >> enclosure rather than a building. >> > > This time, I'd go sty, although pen would also be OK. > In common parlance that could be a sty or a pen. However, I don't think you'd map it as building=sty (or even building=pen) because it's not a building. > The one's I've seen in farmyards have had a rudimentary roof in one > corner, with the rest being dirt or mud! > The bit of roof could be building=sty (a bit of a stretch, though). I'd be tempted to make it building=roof. Especially as that's how somebody might map it if seen from the road but no pigs were around at the time. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 00:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I _am_ tempted to change the name to 'protection_category' because > that's IUCN's term, No objections from me. > and then discuss on the Wiki that 'recreation', > 'culture', and 'hazard' expand upon the IUCN vocabulary to encompass > types of protection that the International Union for the Conservation > of *Nature* does not recognize (these protections, in general, apply > to sites that are substantially altered from a natural state and for > which returning them to a natural state may not be an objective). > Here are some other UK types that occur to me. Some already have other ways of being mapped. Some may fit in with categories/classes/whatevers you already have. I don't insist that your proposal deals with all of them right now (you already have enough to be going on with) but it would be nice if your proposal doesn't make it impossible to add them, cleanly, at a later date. Don't paint yourself into any corners if you can avoid it. :) Site of Special Scientific Interest. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. World Heritage Site and World Heritage Site Arcs of View. Registered Historic Landscape. Protected Wreck. There are also scheduled monuments, but they're generally man-made and dealt with by heritage=*. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
LS With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack) the network value rcn for those node networks. This exception was copied with the claim of network=rwn for the walking node networks. We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. To do that, we need another way to identify (members of) a route network as (members of) a node network. The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=* values of routes. Instead, we are thnking about just adding a tag to identify segment routes as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need this, since they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag. In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type=node_network (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node network routes. Nothing else has to change, which also means that renderers and data users who don't change anything, will not notice anything! But if they want they can make use of the separation and handle node networks different than non-node networks. Notice that no new key or value is proposed here. If new network config types arise, a new value for network_type can accommodate that.The method is applicable for all transport modes and geographical scopes. Thoughts, anyone? What did we forget? Shoot! Fr gr Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:17 AM Paul Allen wrote: > Here are some other UK types that occur to me. Some already have other ways > of > being mapped. Some may fit in with categories/classes/whatevers you already > have. I don't insist that your proposal deals with all of them right now > (you > already have enough to be going on with) but it would be nice if your proposal > doesn't make it impossible to add them, cleanly, at a later date. Don't paint > yourself into any corners if you can avoid it. :) > Site of Special Scientific Interest. Does that actually specify what sort of protection the site enjoys? This might have to be handled case by case. I can think of similar things near me, and they range from 'strict nature reserve' (the Rosendale bat caves, and one or two of the 'Estuarine Reserach Reserves' and 'Biological Research Stations') to 'area with sustainable use of natural resources' ( the title,'Demonstration Forest' is one example.) > Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. protection_class(or protection_category per the earlier discussion)=landscape? > World Heritage > Site and World Heritage Site Arcs of View. Registered Historic Landscape. > Protected > Wreck. There are also scheduled monuments, but they're generally man-made and > dealt with by heritage=*. Most of these would fall under 'cultural', I think - they're not protecting a natural condition of the site but rather its cultural significance. Since the values are keywords, they should be endlessly expandable. Constraining ourselves to the IUCN numeric codes is one of the things that got us into this particular mess in the first place. I intend the set of keywords to be open-ended, but urge discipline so that data consumers don't need to deal with hundreds of variants for the details of each jurisdiction's law. This categorization should give the 'broad strokes'. We also have 'protection_title' and 'related_law' available to let us link to finer details. I already use those in New York. For example,we have 'Wilderness Area', 'Wild Forest', 'Canoe Area' and 'Primitive Area' (plus an anomalous 'Forest Preserve Detached Parcel') that are all effectively 'wilderness'-level protection but with various subtle differences in the regulations and management strategy that concern me as an off-trail hiker, sometime trail maintainer, and protection advocate but would be lost on most users. For instance, 'Wild Forest' allows some 'highway=track', generally 'tracktype=grade3' and worse, and there's a 'Motor Access Program for Persons With Disabilities'. I handle that by tagging the tracks 'motor_vehicle=official;disabled'. It also generally allows trail crews to work with power tools such as chainsaws, while in Wilderness, trail maintenance is ordinarily done with hand tools only, and any motor, even a chainsaw, brush hog, or weed whacker, requires special permission. I don't find that distinction to be worth calling out at this level of detail. Similarly, 'Primitive Area' translates to 'the management intention is wilderness-level protection, but there is some nonconformant fixed asset for which no definitive timetable can be set for removal.' I can discourse endlessly on the politics of specific Primitive Areas, and very few people would care. I also stretch 'wilderness' to include a few things like 'Primitive Bicycle Corridor' (a narrow strip carved out of a wilderness area that effectively has the same management except that it's permissible to harden a trail sufficiently to accommodate a mountain bike rider). To the level of granularity contemplated here, all of these are 'wilderness'. I have the protection title and legal citation available if I need them. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 16:31, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Site of Special Scientific Interest. > Does that actually specify what sort of protection the site enjoys? > Yes and no. It's complicated. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest is an overview. As applied to England (Scotland, Wales, etc. are somewhat different) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-areas-sites-of-special-scientific-interest It's possible you could shoehorn SSSIs into an existing class or classes. > Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. > protection_class(or protection_category per the earlier > discussion)=landscape? > Possibly. Probably. Maybe. :) > World Heritage > > Site and World Heritage Site Arcs of View. Registered Historic > Landscape. Protected > > Wreck. There are also scheduled monuments, but they're generally > man-made and > > dealt with by heritage=*. > > Most of these would fall under 'cultural', I think - they're not > protecting a natural condition of the site but rather its cultural > significance. > The cultural significance can be one reason it is categorized as such, but the other is its natural beauty/aesthetic importance. Either way, it's legally protected (otherwise anyone could come along and trash it, ruining its status). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site Since the values are keywords, they should be endlessly expandable. > Constraining ourselves to the IUCN numeric codes is one of the things > that got us into this particular mess in the first place. I intend the > set of keywords to be open-ended, but urge discipline so that data > consumers don't need to deal with hundreds of variants for the details > of each jurisdiction's law. This categorization should give the 'broad > strokes'. > I just thought I'd let you know how broad some of those strokes will have to be. :) -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:06 PM Paul Allen wrote: >> Since the values are keywords, they should be endlessly expandable. >> Constraining ourselves to the IUCN numeric codes is one of the things >> that got us into this particular mess in the first place. I intend the >> set of keywords to be open-ended, but urge discipline so that data >> consumers don't need to deal with hundreds of variants for the details >> of each jurisdiction's law. This categorization should give the 'broad >> strokes'. > > I just thought I'd let you know how broad some of those strokes will have to > be. :) Uhm, I already knew that. :) Some of the legal classifications in some jurisdictions don't actually inform about what sort of resource is being protected. In the US, 'State Park' often flaas under a single establishing law, and doesn't inform about the specific protection, which can be anything from a wilderness area to an urban swimming beach or a public golf course - or even a brownfield (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6539925 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439630427; oddly appropriate somehow!). Protection status is just as weird and fragmentary in the US as it is in the UK, but there has to be *something* to help a general-interest data consumer sort things out. I assure you that I deal with suppressing the complexity all the time. https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/7811.html is only a *partial* list of the sorts of public lands that I encounter. Those are adminstered by the New York State Department of Environmental Protection. There are others administred by Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, or by other state departments, or the Federal government, or local governmnents, or NGO's. I'm trying to chart the middle course of 'useful although necessarily imprecise abstraction'. (Earlier in the thread, I mentioned tagging the Catskill and Adirondack Parks in New York as 'national_park' and not apologizing. Someone replied to me giving Pembrokeshire Coast National Park as a UK precedent for a 'national park that isnt a National Park, and it's complicated.') 'If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction.' - B. Liskov -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this > exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. Where does this discussion you're talking about take place? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 17:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: (Earlier in the thread, I mentioned tagging the Catskill and > Adirondack Parks in New York as 'national_park' and not apologizing. > Someone replied to me giving Pembrokeshire Coast National Park as a UK > precedent for a 'national park that isnt a National Park, and it's > complicated.') > Yes, it is indeed complicated. But it definitely is a national park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembrokeshire_Coast_National_Park and https://www.pembrokeshirecoast.wales/default.asp?PID=161 It may include things that many wouldn't associate with a national park, but it's a national park. Not just in name but also legally. 'If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but needs batteries, > you probably have the wrong abstraction.' - B. Liskov > But we'll tag it as a duck anyway. Because this is OSM. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paul Allen wrote: > Yes, it is indeed complicated. But it definitely is a national park. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembrokeshire_Coast_National_Park > and https://www.pembrokeshirecoast.wales/default.asp?PID=161 > It may include things that many wouldn't associate with a national > park, but it's a national park. Not just in name but also legally. Oh wait a minute, it was *you* that had brought up Pembrokeshire Coast. Sorry! Richard Fairhurst also brought up the Broads as a complicated example. (He'd been cycling one summer in the Catskill Park, and approved of the 'boundary=national_park' as "quacks like a duck" even though the Catskill Park is definitely not a National Park.) >> 'If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but needs batteries, >> you probably have the wrong abstraction.' - B. Liskov > > But we'll tag it as a duck anyway. Because this is OSM. And because mapping is a human endeavour, and humans delight in contriving things that break abstractions. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Cash withdrawal
Hello My proposal "cash withdrawal" is now ready to vote on. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cash_withdrawal With my best regards Ueli aka amilopowers Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
Osm forums https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67218 (german forum) https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67219 (Belgian forum) https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66243 (Dutch forum) The main discussion of alternatives was on the Dutch forum. Here I present the bottom line. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 29 aug. 2019 om 18:56 schreef s8evq : > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson > wrote: > > > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this > > exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. > > Where does this discussion you're talking about take place? > ___ > 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 - Voting - Cash withdrawal
Ueli, Usually it is standard to allow 2 weeks after the RFC email is sent out, before starting voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting I don't think this is a big problem, but if anyone complains you might need to extend the voting period for an extra week. - Joseph Eisenberg On 8/30/19, amilopow...@u-cloud.ch wrote: > Hello > My proposal "cash withdrawal" is now ready to vote on. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cash_withdrawal > > With my best regards > Ueli aka amilopowers > > > Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Cash withdrawal
I think the 2 week time frame is to allow for someone on holidays (of ~ 2 weeks) to be able to see things and respond. As such the 2 weeks is a minimum not a maximum. Indeed there is no maximum for RFC nor for voting. However if there has been no activity for some time (months?) then some one may put the status to 'inactive'. On 30/08/19 08:12, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Ueli, Usually it is standard to allow 2 weeks after the RFC email is sent out, before starting voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting I don't think this is a big problem, but if anyone complains you might need to extend the voting period for an extra week. - Joseph Eisenberg On 8/30/19, amilopow...@u-cloud.ch wrote: Hello My proposal "cash withdrawal" is now ready to vote on. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cash_withdrawal With my best regards Ueli aka amilopowers Sent from ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
