Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 4/30/20 3:13 AM, Warin wrote:
It may look like sports are played there to you and me. It may 
resemble a park to others. However none of those may be the case! Or 
it may not be the primary use. Simply viewing it without local 
knowledge may well cause errors!


The local mapper should say what the area is primarily used for .. It 
may be used for a weekly market (some 'weeks' are 6 days in Africa).  
It may be used for social/political gatherings.


I know these places well. They are never a marketplace (in Senegal and 
Mali, those are dedicated areas - clearly marked). They are not 
dedicated sport pitches - but soccer kids play soccer. They are 
sometimes used for gatherings. Or parking.


The concept they are closest to is "plaza" 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does not seem 
to have currency in Openstreetmap.



The surface is not grass. I would hesitate to call it sand, could be 
ground. In any case 'unpaved' could be used.



surface=ground ?

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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier :

> The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does not seem
> to have currency in Openstreetmap.



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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Warin]

On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier 
mailto:j...@liotier.org>>:


The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does
not seem
to have currency in Openstreetmap.



place=square


Needs to have a name, many of these have no names.


landuse=plaza, open urban space that can be used for public meetings or 
gatherings???




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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:59 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier <
> j...@liotier.org>:
>
>> The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does not seem
>> to have currency in Openstreetmap.
>
>
>
> place=square
>
> Needs to have a name, many of these have no names.
>


if these are significant open areas that are used for recreation and to
meet each other, it seems improbable that they do not have names. Can you
back your claim with real world examples?

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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Warin]

On 30/4/20 8:08 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:59 Uhr schrieb Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com >:


On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier
mailto:j...@liotier.org>>:

The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way,
does not seem
to have currency in Openstreetmap.



place=square


Needs to have a name, many of these have no names.



if these are significant open areas that are used for recreation and 
to meet each other, it seems improbable that they do not have names. 
Can you back your claim with real world examples?



Not my claim .. but


On 30/4/20 10:06 am, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

On 4/30/20 12:20 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

place=square seems to fit the bill


place=square exists within the place=* hierarchy which , as documented 
in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place, is used to 
characterize named locations. What we tag here is almost always unnamed.


Our goal is to record the nature of that space - and most importantly 
its functionality as a common free space.




Note the statement "What we tag here is almost always unnamed." Fairly 
clear to me.



I also would not say 'used for recreation' as that may not be true in 
all situations.


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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/04/2020 12:10, Peter Elderson wrote:
Seems to me that a "common" is an adequate word for such a place, so 
=common would be right.



That makes sense to me as well.


What key to use? I think it's a use of the land. Actual use can vary, 
may be leisure, may be commerce, may be parking, maybe events.

Size may vary. Surface may vary.

landuse=common makes most sense to me.
name, surface, access etc could be added when applicable.

That's currently one of the keys used at 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=common#values but far from 
the most popular.


How about "leisure=common"?

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :

> On 30/04/2020 12:10, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > landuse=common makes most sense to me.
> > name, surface, access etc could be added when applicable.
> >
> That's currently one of the keys used at
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=common#values but far from
> the most popular.
>
> How about "leisure=common"?



+1, I would prefer leisure=common over landuse, as these seem to be
"features"
(countable, etc.)

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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 4/30/20 12:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
if these are significant open areas that are used for recreation and 
to meet each other, it seems improbable that they do not have names. 
Can you back your claim with real world examples?


Go wander around Dakar and Bamako !


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

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 4/30/20 2:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend 
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:



How about "leisure=common"?


+1, I would prefer leisure=common over landuse, as these seem to be 
"features"

(countable, etc.)


leisure=common is an especially good candidate because land which is 
legally designated as common land in the UK should nowadays be tagged as 
designation=common - and there is therefore no longer a namespace 
collision... leisure=common is available for recycling into our African 
purpose !





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

[Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as 
natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just 
one on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks 
me, so I opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 - 
where mdk suggests that I may be doing it wrong...


Is my simple way incorrect ? It feels correct to me because wetlands are 
complex objects - water bodies are part of them, cross them or partially 
overlap them. From a tagging point of view, it implies that some area is 
both natural=water and natural=wetland - I see no problem with that... 
But others might consider that a logical impossibility.


So, which is the correct way: plain natural=water inside 
natural=wetland, or a natural=water multipolygon with natural=wetland on 
its inner ?



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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi,

I would create a multipolygon for that. Wetland is something different
than a lake/pond.

For wetland the wiki says, that wetland areas contain "characteristic
vegetation that is adapted to its unique soil conditions" [0]. A lake
obviously doesn't (at least no land-vegetation like grass and bushes)
and this is why an area cannot be wetland *and* lake at the same time.
And this is why I consider a multipolygon to be correct.

There might be situations, where two different areas have to be on top
of each other (e.g. a wetland area within a forest where trees are
growing also within the wetland area?), but I thing most of the time
there's only one landuse that fits.

Of course there might be some discussion but I would consider a
multipolygon to be correct in your specific example.

Hauke

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwetland

On 30.04.20 16:36, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as
> natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just
> one on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks
> me, so I opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 -
> where mdk suggests that I may be doing it wrong...
> 
> Is my simple way incorrect ? It feels correct to me because wetlands are
> complex objects - water bodies are part of them, cross them or partially
> overlap them. From a tagging point of view, it implies that some area is
> both natural=water and natural=wetland - I see no problem with that...
> But others might consider that a logical impossibility.
> 
> So, which is the correct way: plain natural=water inside
> natural=wetland, or a natural=water multipolygon with natural=wetland on
> its inner ?
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 04:36:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as
> natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just one
> on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks me, so I
> opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 - where mdk
> suggests that I may be doing it wrong...
> 
> Is my simple way incorrect ? It feels correct to me because wetlands are
> complex objects - water bodies are part of them, cross them or partially
> overlap them. From a tagging point of view, it implies that some area is
> both natural=water and natural=wetland - I see no problem with that... But
> others might consider that a logical impossibility.
> 
> So, which is the correct way: plain natural=water inside natural=wetland, or
> a natural=water multipolygon with natural=wetland on its inner ?

I have myself some QA stuff running and i also do consider this a bug.
A squaremeter can either be wetland or open water e.g a pond. So
cant simply layer them.

I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug,
either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both.

I agree that there are corner cases where this fails. E.g a pond
in a landuse=residential or landuse=forest. Its still the forest.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the
wetland area

That’s a “swamp”: natural=wetland + wetland=swamp

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dswamp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp#Differences_between_marshes_and_swamps
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Andy Townsend via Tagging]

On 30/04/2020 16:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the wetland 
area

That’s a “swamp”: natural=wetland + wetland=swamp

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dswamp


... or it might be seasonal or intermittent, depending on the weather.

There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise.  
There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started 
out as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095 in 2007 and has been 
continuously refined ever since.  The main area's mapped as 
natural=heath now (and that's probably as good a bet as any for what 
"most of it" is), but there are areas that are wetter than others and 
areas that are drier; and areas with more trees and areas with fewer 
trees.  There are some permanent ponds but many more "it'll only be wet 
here N months of the year", where N might be anything between 2 and 11.


Any attempt to draw lines between "wood", "wetland" and "water" is a 
compromise, and to me it's perfectly understandably to sometimes have 
those overlapping (though in the example above it is something I've 
tried to avoid).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

[Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Mike Thompson]

Hello,

I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
(perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
I wanted to check with the rest of the community.

Mike

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168216962#map=19/40.51620/-105.25577

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:46, Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
> I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
> based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
> where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
> (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
> I wanted to check with the rest of the community.
>

It is not uncommon around this part of Wales for farms to have service
roads leading to them that barely qualify as a track.  If it's functioning
as a service road or driveway,   Those are tough calls.

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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise.
> There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started out
> as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095
>

That's coming up as deleted 6 years ago by Yorvik Prestigitator.  Typo?

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Mike is right, a driveway to a residential property should be
highway=service + service=driveway, not highway=track, even if it unpaved
dirt.

This mis-tagging is probably common because OpenStreetMap-Carto and some
other common map styles do not distinguish between unpaved and paved
service roads. (We're working on it:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399)

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:46, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
>> based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
>> where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
>> (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
>> I wanted to check with the rest of the community.
>
>
> It is not uncommon around this part of Wales for farms to have service
> roads leading to them that barely qualify as a track.  If it's functioning
> as a service road or driveway,   Those are tough calls.
>
> --
> 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] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 19:17, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> This mis-tagging is probably common because OpenStreetMap-Carto and some
> other common map styles do not distinguish between unpaved and paved
> service roads. (We're working on it:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399)
>

Or it might be common because, from aerial imagery, it's clearly an unpaved
track.  Or possibly added as a track from the NPE and never changed when
somebody later added buildings to the map.

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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/04/2020 19:09, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to
categorise.  There's an area just up the road from where I am
currently that started out as
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095


That's coming up as deleted 6 years ago by Yorvik Prestigitator.  Typo?

No - follow the history forward and you'll get to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/796675406 .  I was doing some tidying 
up of the fence, woodland and ditches at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84161134#map=19/54.02644/-0.99852 
a few days ago and the object "moved" to a new ID.  For convenience it 
would have made sense to link to that as well, obviously :)


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[ael]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 06:58:55PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:46, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> >
> > I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
> > based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
> > where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
> > (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
> > I wanted to check with the rest of the community.
> >
> 
> It is not uncommon around this part of Wales for farms to have service
> roads leading to them that barely qualify as a track.  If it's functioning
> as a service road or driveway,   Those are tough calls.

I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything but a track:
if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to negotiate.
I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard vehicle is
possible. In general that implies at least some sort of paving. I would
not be happy if someone changed a UK track into something else unless
they have established that it had a proper surface.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:28 PM ael  wrote:

> I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything but a track:
> if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to negotiate.
> I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard vehicle is
> possible. In general that implies at least some sort of paving. I would
> not be happy if someone changed a UK track into something else unless
> they have established that it had a proper surface.
These are all navigable with a regular vehicle. They go to people's
year round residences.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Greg Troxel]

Mike Thompson  writes:

> I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
> based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
> where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
> (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
> I wanted to check with the rest of the community.

I agree with those who say driveways should be highway=service
service=driveway, unless they are so difficult to drive on that they are
really not recommended in a passengar car.

Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least
around me (ma.us) is that

  a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel

  a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a
  parcel

However, drivways are also not legally roads in terms of separate
parcels.


I also agree that this is a problem partially becuase of the default
style not showing dirt roads as dirt.  Whether a road is dirt or paved
is hugely important in all areas where both types exist.  My impresssion
is that England doesn't really have dirt roads because they would be too
muddy.  In New England they are quite common.  My town halfway from
Boston to Worcester has a few and as you go farther out there are more.
I think using track to get a dirt symbol is bad.  But, my impression is
that the symbology plan to short dirt roads on carto is considered too
hard, for reasons that may be valid but that I don't understand.  I
think it's so important that even some ugliness is better than not
showing it.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least
> around me (ma.us) is that
>
>   a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel
>
>   a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a
>   parcel
Here in Colorado some roads have their own parcels, some are just
"rights of way."


> I also agree that this is a problem partially becuase of the default
> style not showing dirt roads as dirt.  Whether a road is dirt or paved
> is hugely important in all areas where both types exist.  My impresssion
> is that England doesn't really have dirt roads because they would be too
> muddy.  In New England they are quite common.
Dirt roads (not paved with asphalt or concrete) are very common here
in both the mountains as well as the plains.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Tod Fitch]

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 11:25 AM, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 19:17, Joseph Eisenberg  > wrote:
> 
> This mis-tagging is probably common because OpenStreetMap-Carto and some 
> other common map styles do not distinguish between unpaved and paved service 
> roads. (We're working on it: 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399 
> )
> 
> Or it might be common because, from aerial imagery, it's clearly an unpaved
> track.  Or possibly added as a track from the NPE and never changed when
> somebody later added buildings to the map.
> 

In the rural southern Arizona community where my parents retired the only real 
way to tell the difference between a track and a service+driveway+upaved is 
whether you end up at a house in a reasonable amount of distance.

I forgot how I mapped those, so I just went back and looked at the area. 
Apparently when I mapped it 4 or 5 years ago I decided on service+driveway.

But if you aren’t looking at it on the ground it would be very difficult to 
tell which would be correct. Even in person it is often quite difficult.

Cheers!
Tod





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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug,
> either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both.
>

Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that?

I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> In the rural southern Arizona community where my parents retired the only 
> real way to tell the difference between a track and a service+driveway+upaved 
> is whether you end up at a house in a reasonable amount of distance.
In all of the cases I am looking at the way in question ends at, or
very near, a house or house and detached garage.

Mike

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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Warin]

On 1/5/20 9:14 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff mailto:f...@zz.de>> 
wrote:


I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug,
either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both.


Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that?

I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them!



And trees used as wind breaks and to provide shelter for animals (both 
'farm' and 'natural').



A problem is the OSM definition may suggest only those areas used for 
tillage are 'farmland'.


Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they 
are 'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub...


Some areas are used for both military (a rocket range) and for farming 
(they get bunkers for use when firing takes place!). They are 
natural=scrub/sand/lake (dry salt)/*.


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

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they are
'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub...

These areas are considered "rangeland" in North American English. I would
not tag them as landuse=farmland, because they are only lightly touched by
human intervention, in most cases they are natural vegetations which has
always been grazed by various animals (in the past, by American Bison or
Elk, now by sheep or cattle).

I agree that landuse=farmland is mostly limited to cropland: we have other
tags for meadows, pastures, farmyards, orchards, vineyards, etc. - though
certainly there are some meadows or orchards or farmyards that are
currently tagged as landuse=farmland for various reasons. I have not seen
any scrub or semi-desert rangeland tagged as landuse=farmland.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 6:58 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/5/20 9:14 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>
> I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug,
>> either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both.
>>
>
> Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that?
>
> I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them!
>
>
> And trees used as wind breaks and to provide shelter for animals (both
> 'farm' and 'natural').
>
>
> A problem is the OSM definition may suggest only those areas used for
> tillage are 'farmland'.
>
> Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they are
> 'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub...
>
> Some areas are used for both military (a rocket range) and for farming
> (they get bunkers for use when firing takes place!). They are
> natural=scrub/sand/lake (dry salt)/*.
> ___
> 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] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:08:22 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:59 Uhr schrieb Warin
> <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier <  
> > j...@liotier.org>:  
> >  
> >> The concept they are closest to is "plaza"
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does
> >> not seem to have currency in Openstreetmap.  
> >
> >
> >
> > place=square
> >
> > Needs to have a name, many of these have no names.
> >  
> 
> 
> if these are significant open areas that are used for recreation and
> to meet each other, it seems improbable that they do not have names.
> Can you back your claim with real world examples?

In most of the world, things only get names when there's some ambiguity
about which one is being referred to.  Real-world example from North
America: when I was growing up, if someone came by and told me there
was a hockey game forming, there was no need to specify where.
Everyone knew that the neighborhood kids used a certain stretch of side
road as their hockey field.

-- 
Mark

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