Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A
> meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture
> indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.
>

Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that specifies the
tree cover is dense.  In
fact, it says: "Integrating pasture into existing woodland presents
challenges as well: the woodland
likely needs to be thinned to increase light infiltration"  It also has
pictures of several different
silvopastures, none of which appear to have dense tree cover throughout.

Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or cutting
> the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.
>

The trees scattered throughout would make it more economic to put animals
out to pasture on
it than to mow it.  But maybe where you are people do things the least
efficient way.  Even if
that is the case, I doubt that would remain viable for much longer.

BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we say a field is
pasture or
meadow: it may change from year to year.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18. Sep 2019, at 17:36, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> In simple signage, yes.  But if you asked most people do those signs apply to 
> coaches
> you'd get a variety of answers, because most people think buses and coaches 
> are
> different things (except for long-distance coaches, which are somewhat 
> ambiguous).


ask the drivers, not „most people“, because if the signs don’t apply to you it 
is not important that you know the meaning. I don’t think we should map legal 
situations based on what we think that the majority thinks, but based on the 
legal situation. It should be clear to whom the sign applies, it should be 
coded in law.

It doesn’t matter whether different kind of vehicles are considered different 
„things“ by the people, we should have tags to unambiguously describe the legal 
situation and the vehicle classes that the law distinguishes.

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

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

[Valor Naram via Tagging]

Let me summarizeWhy `phone`:- It's more used- It's shorter- Better to find in wikiWhy `contact:phone`:- It's more structured because it's a subkey of `contact`- It's better to find in wiki (for people who think in a "more structured" way)- It's the approved oneBoth let us add more subkeys like `emergency`CheerioSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purposeFrom: Colin Smale To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: 
On 2019-08-26 15:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phoneOn 25. Aug 2019, at 18:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote: there are at least two possibilities:phone= phone:emergency= phone:staff= and:phone= emergency:phone= staff:phone= Neither of which requires "contact:" exactly, I was about to reply the same, it is not an issue for more specific tags that there is also a generic tag.

So will we now have the OSM-style discussion about which phone number to put in the generic tag? All numbers are equal, but one is slightly more equal than the rest...
 
 

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

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:20 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Let me summarize
>
> Why `phone`:
> - It's more used
> - It's shorter
> - Better to find in wiki
>
> Why `contact:phone`:
> - It's more structured because it's a subkey of `contact`
> - It's better to find in wiki (for people who think in a "more structured"
> way)
> - It's the approved one



I would question that it is easier to find "contact:phone" compared to
"phone" in the wiki, regardless of the structured way you think in. Try it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=phone+number&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go
contact:phone doesn't even have a wiki page, only a redirect. The first
thing you read on the "contact:*" collector page is a reference to the more
used "phone" key.

I would also question there is a point in the "approval" by voting, as
approval by usage (and growth) is more important than voting.

This leaves only the "more structured" as an argument, which can be seen as
a pro, but also not. And while this "structured" approach may work nicely
for phone numbers, it is questionable for keys like "website", because a
website is a website, and may be an interesting datum, even if there is no
contact possibility whatsoever on the website.

"phone" is not only more used, its usage is also growing faster.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
> I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A
>> meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture
>> indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.
>>
>
> Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that specifies the
> tree cover is dense.
>


I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a
meadow orchard.



> In
> fact, it says: "Integrating pasture into existing woodland presents
> challenges as well: the woodland
> likely needs to be thinned to increase light infiltration"  It also has
> pictures of several different
> silvopastures, none of which appear to have dense tree cover throughout.
>


it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term
"meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods.
Can you see the difference?




> Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or
>> cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.
>>
>
> The trees scattered throughout would make it more economic to put animals
> out to pasture on
> it than to mow it.  But maybe where you are people do things the least
> efficient way.  Even if
> that is the case, I doubt that would remain viable for much longer.
>
> BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we say a field
> is pasture or
> meadow: it may change from year to year.
>


places in southern Germany used for pasture are often in environments where
(mechanically) cutting the grass is not feasible, due to steep terrain, or
where mowing does not make a lot of sense because the soil is quite magre.
My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about
(some kind of) forest with animals grazing below, while meadow orchards is
about meadows with sparse (fruit) trees on them (or sparse orchards on a
meadow, if you like to put it the other way round). Silvopasture requires
pasture, meadow orchards don't.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for
grazing.

That means that the trees are used to produce for forestry products:
usually wood or timber, sometimes bark, sap, or other non-food products.

Orchards produce food: usually fruits like bananas, coconuts or oranges,
but also tea leaves, coffee beans, and fruits used for oil like olives and
oil palms. (According to current osm usage)

I think a new tag like secondary_landuse or landuse:secondary would be nice
so we don’t needn’t tags for every common combination, but I’m ok with
orchard=meadow_orchard since it is already in use.

Joseph

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:43 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen  >:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A
>>> meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture
>>> indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.
>>>
>>
>> Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that specifies the
>> tree cover is dense.
>>
>
>
> I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a
> meadow orchard.
>
>
>
>> In
>> fact, it says: "Integrating pasture into existing woodland presents
>> challenges as well: the woodland
>> likely needs to be thinned to increase light infiltration"  It also has
>> pictures of several different
>> silvopastures, none of which appear to have dense tree cover throughout.
>>
>
>
> it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term
> "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods.
> Can you see the difference?
>
>
>
>
>> Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or
>>> cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.
>>>
>>
>> The trees scattered throughout would make it more economic to put animals
>> out to pasture on
>> it than to mow it.  But maybe where you are people do things the least
>> efficient way.  Even if
>> that is the case, I doubt that would remain viable for much longer.
>>
>> BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we say a field
>> is pasture or
>> meadow: it may change from year to year.
>>
>
>
> places in southern Germany used for pasture are often in environments
> where (mechanically) cutting the grass is not feasible, due to steep
> terrain, or where mowing does not make a lot of sense because the soil is
> quite magre.
> My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about
> (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below, while meadow orchards is
> about meadows with sparse (fruit) trees on them (or sparse orchards on a
> meadow, if you like to put it the other way round). Silvopasture requires
> pasture, meadow orchards don't.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Volker Schmidt]

 we may have to byte the bullet and allow semicolon-separated values for
landuse. Specific word combinations are not a good solution
So far I know of
meadow + fruit trees
bovine pasture + aok trees
grain + olive trees
grain + Almond
pigs + trees

I am sure there are many more.



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#m_-2205893141216746646_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen  >:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A
>>> meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture
>>> indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.
>>>
>>
>> Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that specifies the
>> tree cover is dense.
>>
>
>
> I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a
> meadow orchard.
>
>
>
>> In
>> fact, it says: "Integrating pasture into existing woodland presents
>> challenges as well: the woodland
>> likely needs to be thinned to increase light infiltration"  It also has
>> pictures of several different
>> silvopastures, none of which appear to have dense tree cover throughout.
>>
>
>
> it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term
> "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods.
> Can you see the difference?
>
>
>
>
>> Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or
>>> cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.
>>>
>>
>> The trees scattered throughout would make it more economic to put animals
>> out to pasture on
>> it than to mow it.  But maybe where you are people do things the least
>> efficient way.  Even if
>> that is the case, I doubt that would remain viable for much longer.
>>
>> BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we say a field
>> is pasture or
>> meadow: it may change from year to year.
>>
>
>
> places in southern Germany used for pasture are often in environments
> where (mechanically) cutting the grass is not feasible, due to steep
> terrain, or where mowing does not make a lot of sense because the soil is
> quite magre.
> My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about
> (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below, while meadow orchards is
> about meadows with sparse (fruit) trees on them (or sparse orchards on a
> meadow, if you like to put it the other way round). Silvopasture requires
> pasture, meadow orchards don't.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Steve Doerr]

On 19/09/2019 00:29, Warin wrote:

On 19/09/19 07:02, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 18/09/2019 18:57, Steve Doerr wrote:


Sounds like a road-train to me.



Actually I've reallized that the expression I was looking for was 
'land train'.




I don't think so ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trackless_train is the relevant entry for 
what I have in mind.


--
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 08:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen  >:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A
>>> meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture
>>> indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.
>>>
>>
>> Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that specifies the
>> tree cover is dense.
>>
>
>
> I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a
> meadow orchard.
>

I see a range of tree densities in the Wikipedia article.

it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term
> "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods.
> Can you see the difference?
>

And the term "pasture" is about pastures.  Can you see the similarities?

Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or cutting
>> the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.
>>
>
So you object to silvopasture on the grounds that it implies pasture but
want orchard_meadow
(which implies meadow) yet just admitted that the meadow in an orchard
meadow can be
used either as a meadow OR as a pasture.  If you were being consistent you
would insist on
silvomeadowpasture or propose orchard_pasture too.  I suspect that what is
really behind your
insistence is you want a literal, word-for-word translation of a German
term rather than the
English term for the same thing.

BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we say a field is
>> pasture or
>>
> meadow: it may change from year to year.
>>
>

places in southern Germany used for pasture are often in environments where
> (mechanically) cutting the grass is not feasible, due to steep terrain, or
> where mowing does not make a lot of sense because the soil is quite magre.
>

I said in many cases, not all cases.  We have hill farms around here where
mowing is not
feasible.  But where mowing is possible farmers move animals around fields
from year to
year so that the droppings provide nutrients and improve the physical
properties of the soil.
In some cases I would be confident that a field is pasture and will never
be used as a meadow
but less often would I be confident that field is pasture and will never be
used as a meadow.

My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about
> (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below,
>

I don't see that connotation.  From the Wikipedia article: "Silvopasture
can be established by
planting trees into existing pasture 
[...]" and "Integrating pasture into existing woodland presents
challenges as well: the woodland likely needs to be thinned to increase
light infiltration,"

Neither of those quotes support that silvopasture is about turning animals
loose into a
forest.


> while meadow orchards is about meadows with sparse (fruit) trees on them
> (or sparse orchards on a meadow, if you like to put it the other way round).
>

Not only does the Wikipedia article state that you can put trees into
pasture but it shows pictures
of fields with sparse trees.

Silvopasture requires pasture, meadow orchards don't.
>

A wise man once told me "Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for
either pasture
or cutting the grass."  So meadow_orchard is as wrong as silvopasture.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Topographe Fou]

  And what about something like:Landuse=mixed (0 use in taginfo)Landuse:orchard=yesLanduse:meadow=yes   I would prefer that compared to secondary_landuse as it is much more scalable and less conflict-prone.  LeTopographeFou   De: joseph.eisenb...@gmail.comEnvoyé: 19 septembre 2019 10:47 AMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards  Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for grazing. That means that the trees are used to produce for forestry products: usually wood or timber, sometimes bark, sap, or other non-food products.Orchards produce food: usually fruits like bananas, coconuts or oranges, but also tea leaves, coffee beans, and fruits used for oil like olives and oil palms. (According to current osm usage)I think a new tag like secondary_landuse or landuse:secondary would be nice so we don’t needn’t tags for every common combination, but I’m ok with orchard=meadow_orchard since it is already in use.JosephOn Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:43 PM Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that specifies the tree cover is dense. I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a meadow orchard.  Infact, it says: "Integrating pasture into existing woodland presents challenges as well: 
the woodland likely needs to be thinned to increase light infiltration"  It also has pictures of several differentsilvopastures, none of which appear to have dense tree cover throughout. it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods. Can you see the difference?  Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.The trees scattered throughout would make it more economic to put animals out to pasture on it than to mow it.  But maybe where you are people do things the least efficient way.  Even ifthat is the case, I doubt that would remain viable for much longer.BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we say a field is pasture ormeadow: it may change from year to year.places in southern Germany used for pasture are often in environments where (mechanically) cutting the grass is not feasible, due to steep terrain, or where mowing does not make a lot of sense because the soil is quite magre.My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below, while meadow orchards is about meadows with sparse (fruit) trees on them (or sparse orchards on a meadow, if you like to put it the other way round). Silvopasture requires pasture, meadow orchards don't.Cheers,Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:47, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for
> grazing.
>

>From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture:

Silvopasture is compatible with fruit, nut, and timber production. Grazing
can serve as a cost-effective vegetation and weed control method.
Silvopasture can also help reduce pests and disease in orchards - when
introduced into an orchard after harvest, livestock are able to consume
unharvested fruits, preventing pests and diseases from spreading via these
unharvested fruits and in some cases consuming the pests themselves


That means that the trees are used to produce for forestry products:
> usually wood or timber, sometimes bark, sap, or other non-food products.
>

Or fruit.  Or nuts.  As per the Wikipedia article.

>
> Orchards produce food: usually fruits like bananas, coconuts or oranges,
> but also tea leaves, coffee beans, and fruits used for oil like olives and
> oil palms. (According to current osm usage)
>

See Wikipedia article, and above quotation from it.  Silvopasture includes
orchards and other food
trees.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:51, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> we may have to byte the bullet and allow semicolon-separated values for
> landuse.
>

+1

Specific word combinations are not a good solution
>

+1

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Topographe Fou]

  Oups, wrong key, 32 use of landuse=mixed, sorry. LeTopographeFou   De: letopographe...@gmail.comEnvoyé: 19 septembre 2019 12:53 PMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchardsAnd what about something like:Landuse=mixed (0 use in taginfo)Landuse:orchard=yesLanduse:meadow=yes   I would prefer that compared to secondary_landuse as it is much more scalable and less conflict-prone.  LeTopographeFou   De:  joseph.eisenb...@gmail.comEnvoyé: 19 septembre 2019 10:47 AMÀ:  tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à:  tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards  Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for grazing. That means that the trees are used to produce for forestry products: usually wood or timber, sometimes bark, sap, or other non-food products.Orchards produce food: usually fruits like bananas, coconuts or oranges, but also tea leaves, coffee beans, and fruits used for oil like olives and oil palms. (According to current osm usage)I think a new tag like secondary_landuse or landuse:secondary would be nice so we don’t needn’t tags for every common combination, but I’m ok with orchard=meadow_orchard since it is already in use.JosephOn Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:43 PM Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture indicates a forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that specifies the tree cover is dense. I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a meadow orchard.  Infact, it says: "Integrating pasture into existing woodland presents challenges as well: 
the woodland likely needs to be thinned to increase light infiltration"  It also has pictures of several differentsilvopastures, none of which appear to have dense tree cover throughout. it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods. Can you see the difference?  Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.The trees scattered throughout would make it more economic to put animals out to pasture on it than to mow it.  But maybe where you are people do things the least efficient way.  Even ifthat is the case, I doubt that would remain viable for much longer.BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we say a field is pasture ormeadow: it may change from year to year.places in southern Germany used for pasture are often in environments where (mechanically) cutting the grass is not feasible, due to steep terrain, or where mowing does not make a lot of sense because the soil is quite magre.My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below, while meadow orchards is about meadows with sparse (fruit) trees on them (or sparse orchards on a meadow, if you like to put it the other way round). Silvopasture requires pasture, meadow orchards don't.Cheers,Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Jo]

It's indeed a lot like that train in Tenerife.

Since it's solar powered (supposedly), it's called Zonnetrein.

Not a real train, no rails, more like a bus, but specifically targeted to
tourists or group events.

It's true we don't have a way to map this, so for now I would have been
inclined to use highway=bus_stop with a specific operator on them.

The original poster seems to be talking about bus services with schedule,
for those too I would simply use highway=bus_stop.

For the chartered services, they only have load/unload spots near the
tourist attractions and parking areas. For those spots, it would be good to
have a dedicated tag.

Polyglot

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:14 AM Steve Doerr 
wrote:

> On 19/09/2019 00:29, Warin wrote:
> > On 19/09/19 07:02, Steve Doerr wrote:
> >> On 18/09/2019 18:57, Steve Doerr wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sounds like a road-train to me.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually I've reallized that the expression I was looking for was
> >> 'land train'.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think so ...
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trackless_train is the relevant entry for
> what I have in mind.
>
> --
> Steve
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Jo]

Forgot the link:  https://zonnetrein.be/en/

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jo  wrote:

> It's indeed a lot like that train in Tenerife.
>
> Since it's solar powered (supposedly), it's called Zonnetrein.
>
> Not a real train, no rails, more like a bus, but specifically targeted to
> tourists or group events.
>
> It's true we don't have a way to map this, so for now I would have been
> inclined to use highway=bus_stop with a specific operator on them.
>
> The original poster seems to be talking about bus services with schedule,
> for those too I would simply use highway=bus_stop.
>
> For the chartered services, they only have load/unload spots near the
> tourist attractions and parking areas. For those spots, it would be good to
> have a dedicated tag.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:14 AM Steve Doerr 
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/09/2019 00:29, Warin wrote:
>> > On 19/09/19 07:02, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> >> On 18/09/2019 18:57, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Sounds like a road-train to me.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Actually I've reallized that the expression I was looking for was
>> >> 'land train'.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think so ...
>> >
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trackless_train is the relevant entry for
>> what I have in mind.
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I have to disagree with the wikipedia article. Fruit orchards are not
frequently mentioned with "silvopasture"

Unfortunately, this term is not defined in any of the British English
dictionaries that I've found online, or in reliable American English
dictionaries. The only online dictionary definitions I found were:

"The practice of combining forestry and grazing of domesticated
animals" in "yourdictionary.com" and "glosbe.com" - both are the same.

The cited wikipedia article links to the USDA (United States
Department of Agriculture), which has a whole "Agroforestry" section
(another buzzword...), which says:

"Silvopasture is the deliberate integration of trees and grazing
livestock operations on the same land. These systems are intensively
managed for both forest products and forage, providing both short- and
long-term income sources."
https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/practices/silvopasture.php

So it seems that USDA's definition agrees with what I wrote before:
it's for grazing and forest products, not food production in an
orchard. Thus "silvopasture" is not a good term to use for places that
combine orchards with pasture or meadow; it's likely to cause
confusion.

The lack of definitions in common dictionaries (and in Google
Translate) will also make it hard to find equivalents in other
languages.

- Joseph

On 9/19/19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:47, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for
>> grazing.
>>
>
> From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture:
>
> Silvopasture is compatible with fruit, nut, and timber production. Grazing
> can serve as a cost-effective vegetation and weed control method.
> Silvopasture can also help reduce pests and disease in orchards - when
> introduced into an orchard after harvest, livestock are able to consume
> unharvested fruits, preventing pests and diseases from spreading via these
> unharvested fruits and in some cases consuming the pests themselves
>
>
> That means that the trees are used to produce for forestry products:
>> usually wood or timber, sometimes bark, sap, or other non-food products.
>>
>
> Or fruit.  Or nuts.  As per the Wikipedia article.
>
>>
>> Orchards produce food: usually fruits like bananas, coconuts or oranges,
>> but also tea leaves, coffee beans, and fruits used for oil like olives
>> and
>> oil palms. (According to current osm usage)
>>
>
> See Wikipedia article, and above quotation from it.  Silvopasture includes
> orchards and other food
> trees.
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Diego Cruz]

Hi everyone,

I think that this case and my dehesas pose the same problem, which is that
the current collection of possible landuses is too narrow. In my opinion
there are three options:

a) Expand the number of landuse values to adapt to different realities in
other parts of the world. Apart from dehesas, in Spain (and many other dry
places), there should be a differentiation between irrigated crops and
non-irrigated crops (it's a completely different landscape and it's not
subject to variations), in the same way as there is a difference between
meadow and pasture (from my climatic point of view they could be considered
redundant, as they are just grassy places [I know the difference, by the
way, I'm just trying to prove a point]).

b) Allow for a solution where two or more landuse values are possible,
without having to establish a primary and a secondary usage, which would
prove impossible in most cases. It could be rendered with the classic
stripes of different colours, for example. I'm not an expert and I don't
know how that could be possible. Maybe with landuse=mixed or
semicolon-separated values as some colleagues suggest?

c) Adapt to the current structure using subtags that would have no
consequence as to how the map is rendered (many of us are not satisfied
with this).

Best regards
Diego

El jue., 19 sept. 2019 a las 14:23, Joseph Eisenberg (<
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> I have to disagree with the wikipedia article. Fruit orchards are not
> frequently mentioned with "silvopasture"
>
> Unfortunately, this term is not defined in any of the British English
> dictionaries that I've found online, or in reliable American English
> dictionaries. The only online dictionary definitions I found were:
>
> "The practice of combining forestry and grazing of domesticated
> animals" in "yourdictionary.com" and "glosbe.com" - both are the same.
>
> The cited wikipedia article links to the USDA (United States
> Department of Agriculture), which has a whole "Agroforestry" section
> (another buzzword...), which says:
>
> "Silvopasture is the deliberate integration of trees and grazing
> livestock operations on the same land. These systems are intensively
> managed for both forest products and forage, providing both short- and
> long-term income sources."
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/practices/silvopasture.php
>
> So it seems that USDA's definition agrees with what I wrote before:
> it's for grazing and forest products, not food production in an
> orchard. Thus "silvopasture" is not a good term to use for places that
> combine orchards with pasture or meadow; it's likely to cause
> confusion.
>
> The lack of definitions in common dictionaries (and in Google
> Translate) will also make it hard to find equivalents in other
> languages.
>
> - Joseph
>
> On 9/19/19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:47, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for
> >> grazing.
> >>
> >
> > From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture:
> >
> > Silvopasture is compatible with fruit, nut, and timber production.
> Grazing
> > can serve as a cost-effective vegetation and weed control method.
> > Silvopasture can also help reduce pests and disease in orchards - when
> > introduced into an orchard after harvest, livestock are able to consume
> > unharvested fruits, preventing pests and diseases from spreading via
> these
> > unharvested fruits and in some cases consuming the pests themselves
> >
> >
> > That means that the trees are used to produce for forestry products:
> >> usually wood or timber, sometimes bark, sap, or other non-food products.
> >>
> >
> > Or fruit.  Or nuts.  As per the Wikipedia article.
> >
> >>
> >> Orchards produce food: usually fruits like bananas, coconuts or oranges,
> >> but also tea leaves, coffee beans, and fruits used for oil like olives
> >> and
> >> oil palms. (According to current osm usage)
> >>
> >
> > See Wikipedia article, and above quotation from it.  Silvopasture
> includes
> > orchards and other food
> > trees.
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging meadow orchards

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> irrigated vs non-irrigated crops

That's a good idea. There is a key irrigated=yes/no in use, that can
be added to areas of landuse=farmland, and you can also tag crop=rice
for example. But it needs to be documented with a wiki page:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/irrigated

There's also irrigation=* which can be used to describe the type of
irrigation system? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/irrigation

> without having to establish a primary and a secondary usage

For understanding land use and also for a reasonable rendering, it's
very helpful to describe the primary use of the land.

There's a big difference between a pasture which has a few trees, and
a forestry area where animals area occasionally allowed to graze.

Usually the main land use should be the one that is most economically
important, and also should take up the most land.

Most database users are going to be interested in the main use of the
land, so it's a good idea to always tag this.

For this reason, semicolon-separated values are not a good idea. They
do not make it clear what should be considered the primary feature of
the area.

> subtags that would have no consequence as to how the map is rendered

Subtags can result in different rendering, if you choose to interpret
the other tags. Any renderer will have to make choices about what tags
should be shown in a particular style.

On 9/19/19, Diego Cruz  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think that this case and my dehesas pose the same problem, which is that
> the current collection of possible landuses is too narrow. In my opinion
> there are three options:
>
> a) Expand the number of landuse values to adapt to different realities in
> other parts of the world. Apart from dehesas, in Spain (and many other dry
> places), there should be a differentiation between irrigated crops and
> non-irrigated crops (it's a completely different landscape and it's not
> subject to variations), in the same way as there is a difference between
> meadow and pasture (from my climatic point of view they could be considered
> redundant, as they are just grassy places [I know the difference, by the
> way, I'm just trying to prove a point]).
>
> b) Allow for a solution where two or more landuse values are possible,
> without having to establish a primary and a secondary usage, which would
> prove impossible in most cases. It could be rendered with the classic
> stripes of different colours, for example. I'm not an expert and I don't
> know how that could be possible. Maybe with landuse=mixed or
> semicolon-separated values as some colleagues suggest?
>
> c) Adapt to the current structure using subtags that would have no
> consequence as to how the map is rendered (many of us are not satisfied
> with this).
>
> Best regards
> Diego
>
> El jue., 19 sept. 2019 a las 14:23, Joseph Eisenberg (<
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> I have to disagree with the wikipedia article. Fruit orchards are not
>> frequently mentioned with "silvopasture"
>>
>> Unfortunately, this term is not defined in any of the British English
>> dictionaries that I've found online, or in reliable American English
>> dictionaries. The only online dictionary definitions I found were:
>>
>> "The practice of combining forestry and grazing of domesticated
>> animals" in "yourdictionary.com" and "glosbe.com" - both are the same.
>>
>> The cited wikipedia article links to the USDA (United States
>> Department of Agriculture), which has a whole "Agroforestry" section
>> (another buzzword...), which says:
>>
>> "Silvopasture is the deliberate integration of trees and grazing
>> livestock operations on the same land. These systems are intensively
>> managed for both forest products and forage, providing both short- and
>> long-term income sources."
>> https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/practices/silvopasture.php
>>
>> So it seems that USDA's definition agrees with what I wrote before:
>> it's for grazing and forest products, not food production in an
>> orchard. Thus "silvopasture" is not a good term to use for places that
>> combine orchards with pasture or meadow; it's likely to cause
>> confusion.
>>
>> The lack of definitions in common dictionaries (and in Google
>> Translate) will also make it hard to find equivalents in other
>> languages.
>>
>> - Joseph
>>
>> On 9/19/19, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:47, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Right. Silvopasture combines trees used for forestry with grass for
>> >> grazing.
>> >>
>> >
>> > From the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture:
>> >
>> > Silvopasture is compatible with fruit, nut, and timber production.
>> Grazing
>> > can serve as a cost-effective vegetation and weed control method.
>> > Silvopasture can also help reduce pests and disease in orchards - when
>> > introduced into an orchard after harvest, livestock are able to consume
>> > unharvested fruits, preventing pests and diseases from 

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 9/14/2019 10:53 AM, Tim Magee wrote:

I would absolutely agree with this use case. Especially for cases such as the
regularly mentioned Burger King. If somebody from out of town is either
traveling through or armchair mapping they could be confused. If they are
using the ID editor, it suggests that you "upgrade the tags" which could lead
to a "Burger King" that is not part of the international Burger King tag
having the same brand:wikidata tag.


Personally I have a problem with the asymmetry of work that this
requires from mappers who need to protect their work from iD versus
mappers who blindly "upgrade" using iD.

The first mapper has to 1) be familiar with all possible brands (Burger
King is a brand most mappers know, but take a look at all the brands in
this list:
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/master/brands/amenity/fast_food.json
...and that's just the fast food!) 2) recognize when a feature might
have a brand conflict 3) look up the brand in question and 4) correctly
tag the "not:" prefix for brand in question. The second mapper simply
has to hit the "upgrade" button when prompted.

I certainly have no problem with the idea that iD and other editors
would respect the "not:brand" tag when applying brand info to a feature.
But I'm not buying the idea that these "not:" tags are the solution to
the increasing problem of brand tags being incorrectly applied by iD
(sometimes along with incorrect corrections to name, cuisine, etc.)

The simple truth is that automatically adding these brand tags is a
mechanical bot edit, and the fact that the bot in question is triggered
by a user clicking an ambiguous "upgrade" button doesn't change that.
These edits should be subject to peer review here on the tagging list,
and the iD branding bot should behave according to the automated edits
code of conduct. Yes, this is slower, but it's the right way. Putting
the onus on the original correct mapper to prevent iD's incorrect tags
seems backward.

Jason



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 12:57 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a
>> meadow orchard.
>>
>
> I see a range of tree densities in the Wikipedia article.
>

> it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term
>> "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about a "forest"/woods.
>> Can you see the difference?
>>
>
> And the term "pasture" is about pastures.  Can you see the similarities?
>


pasture is not synonymous to meadow, it is a part of it.



>
> Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either pasture or
>>> cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies pasture.
>>>
>>
> So you object to silvopasture on the grounds that it implies pasture but
> want orchard_meadow
> (which implies meadow) yet just admitted that the meadow in an orchard
> meadow can be
> used either as a meadow OR as a pasture.  If you were being consistent you
> would insist on
> silvomeadowpasture or propose orchard_pasture too.  I suspect that what is
> really behind your
> insistence is you want a literal, word-for-word translation of a German
> term rather than the
> English term for the same thing.
>


the fact that there are different terms for these in German (Streuobstwiese
vs. Hutewald / Waldweide / Hutung) indicates (besides the other criterion)
that they are different concepts.



My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is about
> (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below,
>


I agree, and this is why it is not the same as a meadow orchard, because a
meadow orchard is not about a kind of forest.


I don't see that connotation.  From the Wikipedia article: "Silvopasture
> can be established by
> planting trees into existing pasture
>  [...]" and "Integrating pasture
> into existing woodland presents
> challenges as well: the woodland likely needs to be thinned to increase
> light infiltration,"
>


You are basing your arguments entirely on wikipedia, but it would not be
the first time that there are errors in a wikipedia article.



Not only does the Wikipedia article state that you can put trees into
> pasture but it shows pictures
> of fields with sparse trees.
>


I admit there are pictures in the article that show trees in a setting that
is quite sparse and may not qualify for the term "forest", but still these
aren't trees that are usually found in an orchard.


Silvopasture requires pasture, meadow orchards don't.
>>
>
A wise man once told me "Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for
> either pasture
> or cutting the grass."  So meadow_orchard is as wrong as silvopasture.
>

no, this is not logical. Please read again what you just wrote.

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

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I think the idea of the iD developers was to add "not:brand=XXX" when
a mapper selects "this is not that brand" in the editor.

This would then make it clear that the feature had already been
checked and noted to be different than the expected brand based on the
name.

But wisely, they decided not to do that right away, since the tag had
not been documented and discussed.

- Joseph

On 9/19/19, Jmapb via Tagging  wrote:
> On 9/14/2019 10:53 AM, Tim Magee wrote:
>> I would absolutely agree with this use case. Especially for cases such as
>> the
>> regularly mentioned Burger King. If somebody from out of town is either
>> traveling through or armchair mapping they could be confused. If they are
>> using the ID editor, it suggests that you "upgrade the tags" which could
>> lead
>> to a "Burger King" that is not part of the international Burger King tag
>> having the same brand:wikidata tag.
>
> Personally I have a problem with the asymmetry of work that this
> requires from mappers who need to protect their work from iD versus
> mappers who blindly "upgrade" using iD.
>
> The first mapper has to 1) be familiar with all possible brands (Burger
> King is a brand most mappers know, but take a look at all the brands in
> this list:
> https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/master/brands/amenity/fast_food.json
> ...and that's just the fast food!) 2) recognize when a feature might
> have a brand conflict 3) look up the brand in question and 4) correctly
> tag the "not:" prefix for brand in question. The second mapper simply
> has to hit the "upgrade" button when prompted.
>
> I certainly have no problem with the idea that iD and other editors
> would respect the "not:brand" tag when applying brand info to a feature.
> But I'm not buying the idea that these "not:" tags are the solution to
> the increasing problem of brand tags being incorrectly applied by iD
> (sometimes along with incorrect corrections to name, cuisine, etc.)
>
> The simple truth is that automatically adding these brand tags is a
> mechanical bot edit, and the fact that the bot in question is triggered
> by a user clicking an ambiguous "upgrade" button doesn't change that.
> These edits should be subject to peer review here on the tagging list,
> and the iD branding bot should behave according to the automated edits
> code of conduct. Yes, this is slower, but it's the right way. Putting
> the onus on the original correct mapper to prevent iD's incorrect tags
> seems backward.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging meadow orchards

[Markus]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 16:32, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> Usually the main land use should be the one that is most economically
> important, and also should take up the most land.

Most economically important including or excluding subsidies? In
Switzerland, farmers receive subsidies for standard trees because of
diversity and "landscape quality", that is, because it looks nice.
(I'm not joking.) They probably wouldn't plant standard trees or would
fell them if they didn't receive any subsidies.

Regarding "taking up the most land", the meadow seems to win at meadow orchards.

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

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

19 Sep 2019, 16:52 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> Personally I have a problem with the asymmetry of work that this
> requires from mappers who need to protect their work from iD versus
> mappers who blindly "upgrade" using iD.
>
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6517 
 - 
"Despite that iD is asking user to add brand:wikidata and brand:wikipedia
and describes this action as "XYZ looks like a brand with nonstandard tags"
and offers user to "Upgrade the tags"."

For now nobody made a PR and is with "considering" label.

> The simple truth is that automatically adding these brand tags is a
> mechanical bot edit, and the fact that the bot in question is triggered
> by a user clicking an ambiguous "upgrade" button doesn't change that.
>
I am tempted to interpret this way, but so far I made no attempt to escalate
it to DWG (and I am not planning it, I have found recently two undiscussed
imports that should be reverted due to unclear copyright status that are
anyway not handled due to lack of time).

> These edits should be subject to peer review here on the tagging list,
> and the iD branding bot should behave according to the automated edits
> code of conduct. Yes, this is slower, but it's the right way. Putting
> the onus on the original correct mapper to prevent iD's incorrect tags
> seems backward.
>
I would rather say that iD validator should have sane interface not 
black box "upgrade tags".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:52:01 -0400
Jmapb via Tagging  wrote:

> On 9/14/2019 10:53 AM, Tim Magee wrote:
> > I would absolutely agree with this use case. Especially for cases
> > such as the regularly mentioned Burger King. If somebody from out
> > of town is either traveling through or armchair mapping they could
> > be confused. If they are using the ID editor, it suggests that you
> > "upgrade the tags" which could lead to a "Burger King" that is not
> > part of the international Burger King tag having the same
> > brand:wikidata tag.  
> 
> Personally I have a problem with the asymmetry of work that this
> requires from mappers who need to protect their work from iD versus
> mappers who blindly "upgrade" using iD.

It's not just iD that's the problem.  There's an industrial-supply
store I've been monitoring called "Safway", and even before the
invention of the name-suggestion index, well-meaning armchair mappers
would turn it into a grocery store called "Safeway".  A "not:brand" tag
would reduce the workload by letting iD cue mappers that no, this isn't
the well-known grocery store.

(There's also a "Maxwell House", but thankfully, most people realize
that the coffee brand doesn't operate restaurants.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Following useful comments received about the utility markers proposal, it
has been reworked a bit.

Now marker=* is used to classify markers upon their shape and design, which
allows to include already used marker=stone in it. marker=* is intended in
the specific context of utility markers but can be used elsewhere if
suitable.
This change enable to get rid of support=* key as the design of the marker
implies the support. It's now more convenient to use marker=* on another
feature (marker=plate on power=pole for instance).

utility=* key is introduced to give information of what is actually
referred by the marker.
More valuable than the colour (which is nevertheless optional), utility
will be usable in many contexts and situations with a set of commonly
adopted values and ability to define more local ones if required.

For now I'm still in favour of deprecating pipeline=marker and don't
encourage to use power=marker any more (I'm aware this require a
significant effort
As explained, markers aren't part of pipelines or cables and they should
get their own key as to not clutter several keys with the same concept.


Feel free to raise concerns on Talk page, all the best

François


Le dim. 8 sept. 2019 à 15:48, François Lacombe 
a écrit :

> Hi everyone
>
> Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 02:06, Joseph Eisenberg 
> a écrit :
>
>> Because most mappers only add 1 tag to each new object. (Folks like
>> you and me are an exception - and a year ago, when I was new at this,
>> I only usually added 1 tag per feature). If an object can be described
>> with one tag, it's better to do this and create several tags, (e.g.
>> pipeline=marker, power=marker) rather than requiring each object to be
>> tagged with 2 or 3 or 4 tags. This saves mapper time and makes sure
>> that each object is fully described.
>>
>
> I understand the need of simplicity in chosen terms. Neverthess I can't
> imagine OSM with single-key objects as a principle.
> +1 with Martin : if occasional mappers want to reduce their typing time,
> they will use presets in convenient editors like iD or JOSM.
> This argument comes on many discussions and oppose kind of simplicity to
> semantic consistency. Tagging with several consistent tags could be more
> easily handled and versatile than one single key mixing concepts for
> reasons that are not necessarily shared by the whole community.
>
> However, this proposal will be reworked to take care of this batch of
> comment, it's appreciable we can discuss these points here.
>
> Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 07:17, Mateusz Konieczny 
> a écrit :
>
>> Is it typical to map "it is marker of an
>> unknown kind" like splitting shop
>> and opening hours makes sense?
>>
>
> It makes sense to map "here is a marker what it looks like" without
> explicitly attaching it to a utility.
> One mapper will describe what she/he sees, and a second will complete with
> her/his own knowledge.
>
> Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 16:11, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> a écrit :
>
>> I would expect utility marker mapping to be a special interest. Jane
>> Mapper will not map these, or will be so excited about her discovery on the
>> ground that she will be willing to look it up on a wiki page ;-)
>>
> I definitely have to meet Jane Mapper, Martin :d
>
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

[François Lacombe]

A link would be better to reach the document
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal

Sorry for noise

François

Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 à 23:59, François Lacombe 
a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> Following useful comments received about the utility markers proposal, it
> has been reworked a bit.
>
> Now marker=* is used to classify markers upon their shape and design,
> which allows to include already used marker=stone in it. marker=* is
> intended in the specific context of utility markers but can be used
> elsewhere if suitable.
> This change enable to get rid of support=* key as the design of the marker
> implies the support. It's now more convenient to use marker=* on another
> feature (marker=plate on power=pole for instance).
>
> utility=* key is introduced to give information of what is actually
> referred by the marker.
> More valuable than the colour (which is nevertheless optional), utility
> will be usable in many contexts and situations with a set of commonly
> adopted values and ability to define more local ones if required.
>
> For now I'm still in favour of deprecating pipeline=marker and don't
> encourage to use power=marker any more (I'm aware this require a
> significant effort
> As explained, markers aren't part of pipelines or cables and they should
> get their own key as to not clutter several keys with the same concept.
>
>
> Feel free to raise concerns on Talk page, all the best
>
> François
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

[Warin]

On 19/09/19 18:49, Volker Schmidt wrote:
we may have to byte the bullet and allow semicolon-separated values 
for landuse. Specific word combinations are not a good solution


OSM uses landuse=residential as a broad brush that includes recreation 
and commercial uses. It includes various densities of population.


Why not landuse=agriculture? As a broad brush it could do well. Could 
includes all types of agriculture practice.


If the output of the area is required then the key produce could be used ..


So far I know of
meadow + fruit trees
bovine pasture + aok trees
grain + olive trees
grain + Almond
pigs + trees

I am sure there are many more.


 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
 




On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 09:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>>:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow
orchards. A meadow orchard is specifically low
density/sparse trees, while silvopasture indicates a
forest/woodland, i.e. denser tree cover.


Really?  I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that
specifies the tree cover is dense.



I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared
to a meadow orchard.

In
fact, it says: "Integrating pasture into existing woodland
presents challenges as well: the woodland
likely needs to be thinned to increase light infiltration"  It
also has pictures of several different
silvopastures, none of which appear to have dense tree cover
throughout.



it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use
the term "meadow" with trees on it. The term "silvo" also is about
a "forest"/woods. Can you see the difference?



Also the meadow in meadow orchard can be used for either
pasture or cutting the grass, while silvopasture implies
pasture.


The trees scattered throughout would make it more economic to
put animals out to pasture on
it than to mow it.  But maybe where you are people do things
the least efficient way.  Even if
that is the case, I doubt that would remain viable for much
longer.

BTW, we're probably fooling ourselves in many cases where we
say a field is pasture or
meadow: it may change from year to year.



places in southern Germany used for pasture are often in
environments where (mechanically) cutting the grass is not
feasible, due to steep terrain, or where mowing does not make a
lot of sense because the soil is quite magre.
My point was that "silvopasture" has different connotations, it is
about (some kind of) forest with animals grazing below, while
meadow orchards is about meadows with sparse (fruit) trees on them
(or sparse orchards on a meadow, if you like to put it the other
way round). Silvopasture requires pasture, meadow orchards don't.

Cheers,
Martin

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


 
	Virus-free. www.avast.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] Motorcycle taxis, pedicabs

[Warin]

On 19/09/19 15:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 13:57, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:



Is "pedicab" the best British English / International English term for
these hired tricycles vehicles? 



That's what I've always known them as.

There are also "motorcycle rickshaws", called "tuk-tuk" in Thailand
and "bemo" or "bajai" here in Indonesia. They are 3 wheeled vehicles
with 1 or 2 covered bench seats in the back, and the front is like
part of a motorcycle.

These probably need a different tag. Is there a standard British
English term for these? 



As they are not common in the UK (someone rode a  tuk-tuk back from 
India so there is at least one there) they don't have a common term.


I have had a local English speaker use the term ""  in Yogyakarta, but 
that could have been for my benefit.


If the local 'taxi' is a horse and carriage .. then so be it.

Possibly the kind of taxi needs to be indicated? As noted on the wiki 
for taxi people are already trying to tag this.


taxi_vehicle=car/motorbike/tuk_tuk/* may be a way forward?? This keeps 
the local use with the differences.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Motorcycle taxis, pedicabs

[Joseph Eisenberg]

In Yogjakarta (Indonesia) you can hire 5 different rides with different
names

1) taxi (motorcar) - called a “taksi”
2) pedicab (pedaled tricycle) - called a “becak”
3) motorcycle “taxi” - called a “Ojek” (a private motorcycle is a “motor)
4) auto rickshaw - called a “bemo” or “bajai”
5) horse-drawn carriage - called a “dokar” or “andong” depending on if 2 or
4 wheels. These are becoming rare now, so I haven’t mentioned them before.

A horse-drawn carriage can hold 8 people with luggage, but a motorcycle
only carried 1 or 2 without luggage, so they are quite different features.
And the bicycle rickshaw/pedicab won’t go up hills and can’t carry too much
weight. I believe they deserve different tags.

Joseph

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:21 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/09/19 15:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 13:57, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is "pedicab" the best British English / International English term for
>> these hired tricycles vehicles?
>
>
> That's what I've always known them as.
>
>
>> There are also "motorcycle rickshaws", called "tuk-tuk" in Thailand
>> and "bemo" or "bajai" here in Indonesia. They are 3 wheeled vehicles
>> with 1 or 2 covered bench seats in the back, and the front is like
>> part of a motorcycle.
>>
>> These probably need a different tag. Is there a standard British
>> English term for these?
>
>
> As they are not common in the UK (someone rode a  tuk-tuk back from India
> so there is at least one there) they don't have a common term.
>
> I have had a local English speaker use the term ""  in Yogyakarta, but
> that could have been for my benefit.
>
> If the local 'taxi' is a horse and carriage .. then so be it.
>
> Possibly the kind of taxi needs to be indicated? As noted on the wiki for
> taxi people are already trying to tag this.
>
> taxi_vehicle=car/motorbike/tuk_tuk/* may be a way forward?? This keeps the
> local use with the differences.
> ___
> 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] Tagging meadow orchards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Sep 2019, at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why not landuse=agriculture? As a broad brush it could do well. Could 
> includes all types of agriculture practice.


we already have a broad brush for this field: landuse=farmland

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