Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet
sent from a phone > On 11 Oct 2022, at 11:39, Illia Marchenko wrote: > > Of course. Hierarchical tagging. leisure = pitch & sport = *. or leisure=swimming_pool, track, golf_course, fitness_centre, sports_centre, climbing, mtb routes, landuse=recreation_ground, piste=* etc The situation is similar to drinking water sources, some can be found under one tag, for others there is a different tag. It is a consequence of how people perceive things, ideally. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic
Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb martianfreeloader < martianfreeloa...@posteo.net>: > So then what's the point of approving tags anyways? there is not much sense in the act of "approving", the meaningful part has happened before, the main benefit lies in the process, improving the poposal by discussing things on a global level, widening your view, integrating different views and situations. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic
Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:19 Uhr schrieb Marc_marc : > On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >> we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, > > you don't need please do not speak for others, it was a way if saying; "the history key cannot be more approved as it is now". If you believe it should be voted upon "approval" of the history key, what would it mean if the vote didn't pass? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps
On 11/10/22 05:39, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote: I feel that writing on this mailing list is not such a good way to find good solutions to problems, while it appears a wonderful place to find problems. Yes, a wonderful way to find problems. Few suggest ways to fix them... I do try to suggest things, most ignore them. I do support man_made=water_tap and man_made=drinking_fountain as standalone features, not necessarily attached to a building, a water tank etc... If they are attached .. then a node on the other thing .. but the node only has the man_made=* tag. - I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a solution first before even thinking of depreciation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 17:46 Uhr schrieb Evan Carroll : > Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning. +1 However, as-is unnamed > developed landuse is a function of the buildings inside. > not necessarily, it is about the whole land that has the tag, it could also be land without buildings on it. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > Part of the issue is that landuse should more or less follow property > lines, unless there is some reason why not. I would generally agree with this > a several-acre parcel with > a house and some trees is still landuse=residential on all of it, it depends, if this means a big residential garden or other use that is clearly associable with the people living there, then yes, if there are other significant uses (particularly commercially relevant uses) like breeding animals, growing fruit or vegetables for sale (significantly more than the residents use themselves), or some other workplace, the landuse could be split, it is up to the discreetion of the mapper. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 17:43 Uhr schrieb Evan Carroll : > Some neighborhoods have signs with names, which is great > because you can add value with the name. use place=neighbourhood for these names if they are referring to something bigger than a contiguos property. When you add names to landuse, it creates problems because names like these mostly refer to more than one landuse, foremost the public streets, alleys and footways, but also educational institutions, small retail and commercial use (it depends on the area of course), places of worship, etc., and it prevents others from refining the landuse because it is now also relating to a toponym. Often names refer to the whole part of the settlement, but there are also named contiguos, single use developments where adding the name to the landuse seems to "work" (not generally, only in some instances). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC: Two new extensions for the wiki: Log in via openstreetmap.org and vote via a GUI
Hi everybody, I wrote two small MediaWiki extensions for wiki.openstreetmap.org: one to let you log in via your OSM account and one to provide an easy to use in-wiki GUI for proposal voting. I also set up a small demo wiki so that you all can try both extensions out: https://demo-wiki.push-f.com/ You can leave your feedback using both extensions on the demo wiki, or alternatively here on the mailing list. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 20:00 Uhr schrieb Evan Carroll : > > This is all 100% new to me. Where is it documented that a "shop" in a > detached house should be mapped as a detached house, and not a shop? > please do not try to create confusion bvy shortening things. There are 2 entities to be mapped: a building and a shop. The building has its own tags, refering to the building, and the value of the key "building" is about its architectural type. As an architect I can tell you that there is not just one kind of "building type", it depends on the classification system which type a building is seen as, but that in general there are building types, from an architectural point of view, is not under discussion. The kind of types we are discerning can be found in the wiki, and you are also encouraged to introduce different types as you see missing. > Where is the notion of "architectural origins" documented. > it is an interpretation / result of the typology classification. It means that a building that was constructed with a certain typology, keeps being in this "box" unless it get transformed to a different type of building. Personally, as long as you can recognize the original building type, I tend to use this for the building value. > I thought we could treat the wiki as authoritative and everything else not > in the wiki as a wrong or mistaken, or unsupported? > we don't do this. We treat the wiki as descriptive and the data base as authoritative, as long as it isn't an error, in this case we fix it ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Two new extensions for the wiki: Log in via openstreetmap.org and vote via a GUI
Am Do., 13. Okt. 2022 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Martin Fischer : > Hi everybody, > > I wrote two small MediaWiki extensions for wiki.openstreetmap.org: one > to let you log in via your OSM account and one to provide an easy to use > in-wiki GUI for proposal voting. > > I also set up a small demo wiki so that you all can try both extensions > out: > > https://demo-wiki.push-f.com/ > > You can leave your feedback using both extensions on the demo wiki, or > alternatively here on the mailing list. Hi Martin, this is great news, maybe offtopic on the tagging mailing list, I'd have it expected on talk or dev, but sounds and looks very interesting. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Two new extensions for the wiki: Log in via openstreetmap.org and vote via a GUI
Hi Martin, this is great news, maybe offtopic on the tagging mailing list, I'd have it expected on talk or dev, but sounds and looks very interesting. Thanks :) I just also sent the same announcement to the talk list. Sidenote: I am curious how many subscribers the mailing lists each have. I'd expect tagging@ to have more subscribers than talk@ but that's just a hunch. Best, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Two new extensions for the wiki: Log in via openstreetmap.org and vote via a GUI
Am Do., 13. Okt. 2022 um 11:55 Uhr schrieb Martin Fischer : > Sidenote: I am curious how many subscribers the mailing lists each have. > I'd expect tagging@ to have more subscribers than talk@ but that's just > a hunch. I see the potential users less amongst those who already participate here, but it can be a good way for those who cannot be bothered to set up a wiki account or who feel it is too complicated to participate because they would have to register at a different site (wiki). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Vào lúc 01:45 2022-10-13, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết: Often names refer to the whole part of the settlement, but there are also named contiguos, single use developments where adding the name to the landuse seems to "work" (not generally, only in some instances). The latter is especially prevalent in the U.S., in areas developed since the 1950s or so. Master-planned communities, apartment complexes, and strip malls figure very large in the American landscape. Their names and extents are both objective and verifiable on the ground and not just a cartographic convenience. Going back to the original topic about Houston, the northwestern corner of the metropolitan area has already been blanketed in named landuse areas (coincidentally) aligned to a combination of property lines and easements. The relatively few unnamed landuse areas are compact and logical, apart from the gas station conflation mentioned earlier. This style of mapping helps users orient themselves on any map that labels the landuse areas and adds value where the likes of Google regularly get it wrong by copying verbatim from planning maps. [1][2] As far as I know, Lyft has been careful not to disturb any named landuse areas or map coarse landuse areas that are redundant to them. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011131.html [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/technology/google-maps-neighborhood-names.html -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Nick Santos writes: > I'd say if you think it's going to work, build it and show the community > examples of where it works well and where it doesn't. Discussing the > hypothetical makes us all revert to our own assumptions rather than looking > at a real comparison. I'm personally skeptical that a model will work very > well, because right now, land use tagging appears to fill in for when we're > missing more detail in the DB already, which suggests to me that to take > the more detailed data and try to infer the general case is something the > dataset isn't ready for except, maybe, in some areas. Well said. I don't have the energy to continue to engage, but I was thinking this too. Don't just build it, but build it, take OSM and remove landuse tags and then-empty objects, generate the landuse polygons you think can be created "automatically", and difference them, and then for those that don't map, post a dataset and people can look at the differences. > But again, I'm not saying don't build it - just expect serious scrutiny of > its outputs. I also don't think the existence of a hypothetical better > method is a reason for others to stop doing it their own way, assuming both > result in acceptable data - OSM is a project of people adding the edits > they're willing and able to edit. The methodology is only of concern if the > result is bad, and I shared my opinion on that above. Agreed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > >> Part of the issue is that landuse should more or less follow property >> lines, unless there is some reason why not. > >> a several-acre parcel with >> a house and some trees is still landuse=residential on all of it, > > it depends, if this means a big residential garden or other use that is > clearly associable with the people living there, then yes, if there are > other significant uses (particularly commercially relevant uses) like > breeding animals, growing fruit or vegetables for sale (significantly more > than the residents use themselves), or some other workplace, the landuse > could be split, it is up to the discreetion of the mapper. I agree that if there is commercial use also, then there are likely going to be two landuses. That's what I tried to say earlier. But most residential properties are not like that. Around me there are often 0.5 ha to several ha (1 to 5 or maybe 10 acres, for US people :-) parcels that have a house, some lawn, and some either wetland or forest, where in the wetland or forest, pretty much nothing happens other than plants grow and wildlife wanders. I see that as fitting into the larger residential landuse as it's basically buffer from neighbors. I also think the point someone made earlier is valid: landuse is not just about buildings. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Minh Nguyen writes: > Vào lúc 01:45 2022-10-13, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết: >> Often names refer to the whole part of the settlement, but there are >> also named contiguos, single use developments where adding the name >> to the landuse seems to "work" (not generally, only in some >> instances). > > The latter is especially prevalent in the U.S., in areas developed > since the 1950s or so. Master-planned communities, apartment > complexes, and strip malls figure very large in the American > landscape. Their names and extents are both objective and verifiable > on the ground and not just a cartographic convenience. Agreed. Perhaps more New England, but someone will have a large chunk of land (former farm often) and subdivide into house lots. This is donei with a subdivision plan that needs planning board approval (to verify setbacks, lot sizes and frontage, street layout, etc.) and that ~always has a name associated with it, and almost always, that name is then used to refer to that subdivision. I don't see that as place=neighborhood which I would use for something more organic and older, without a crisp boundary. With a subdivision plan, a property is either part of it or not, and it's very easy for anyone to look at the public records of the subdivision. These have landuse=residential with names. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps
On 13/10/22 10:15, Warin wrote: I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a solution first before even thinking of depreciation. I do agree and appreciate this approach. A solution for tagging man_made=drinking_fountain already exists, that is fountain=bubbler. I see no problem in deprecating that since a good and valid solution that does not present the same amount of problems does already exist, I believe this is well explained in the deprecation proposal. I am trying to propose some solutions, but I'm rather inexperienced at doing that and thus I'm trying to follow advice of people who know more than me. I have made a proposal which clearly has some problems and I will try to fix those problems as soon as I get time to do so. OT: to all the threads I left unreplied up to now, sorry guys I'll get back to you as soon as I can. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*
On 12/10/22 10:36, Warin wrote: Why not fountain:style=* and fountain:function=*? Could save some misunderstandings and ease migration? I was thinking about fountain:design since style is a generic attribute that might be interpreted in many different ways. What do you mean by fountain:function? Do you mean tagging fountain:function=drinking? Then what would you tag fountain=* with? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*
it is a historic fountain that IMHO clearly is decorative In my opinion the fountain is neither historic nor decorative. It is an old fountain, maybe 100/200 years old, but I don't see how that could be defined as historic since it has no historic importance, it's just an old fountain. I don't think it is decorative, it's a fountain in a small village which was probably used to refresh people, get water for cleaning and watering plants. Probably houses around didn't have running water until recently and this is what they used. Probably the division between decorative and utility fountains is futile since it can be interpreted in many different ways. We might simply fall back to amenity=fountain when no better definition is available. The general understanding, as far as I understood by reading your replies, is that amenity=fountain refers only to decorative fountains. However, the wiki clearly states that amenity=fountain refers to any fountain that has some kind of "recreational" utility. A fountain with cultural, decorational or historical significance or which serves a *recreational* purpose. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*
On 12/10/22 10:32, Warin wrote: I don't think the stream of water is the most useful feature .. it is the water in the trough for animals to drink from .. horses, donkeys .. etc.. I am assuming the lower structure contains some level of water simply by its shape. No, it does not contain any significant level of water; but I don't exclude a pipe can be added to increase the water level. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*
why are you sure it is a fountain? And what has it to do with it having a tap? if it isn’t a tap it will not help if it had one. I'm not sure about anything anymore... Maybe it is not a fountain, the problem is that I have no idea how that could be tagged with the current tagging scheme. It is currently tagged as natural=spring, which it clearly is not since it is not a natural formation and it is way too low altitude to be a spring anyway. If this is still about laundry sinks, I suggest to not see them as fountains. No, this is not for laundry; the specific use of this fountain is not exactly clear to me but I guess mostly to provide water for cleaning houses and watering plants. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*
sent from a phone > On 13 Oct 2022, at 18:25, Davidoskky via Tagging > wrote: > > It is an old fountain, maybe 100/200 years old, but I don't see how that > could be defined as historic since it has no historic importance, it's just > an old fountain. > maybe I am using the word historic incorrectly or it has several meanings, there is no requirement for “historic importance” in the meaning I intended. If you prefer the word “old”, I can live with this, although old could apply to things that are much younger than those where historic applies. Something from a few years ago could be old, not likely historic (maybe in the computer industry). > I don't think it is decorative, it's a fountain in a small village which was > probably used to refresh people, get water for cleaning and watering plants. > It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot recognize that the fountain is clearly decorated. It is not just an utility, the wall is a part, isn’t it? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*
sent from a phone > On 13 Oct 2022, at 18:35, Davidoskky wrote: > > It is currently tagged as natural=spring, which it clearly is not since it is > not a natural formation and it is way too low altitude to be a spring anyway. ask the mapper who put it, maybe they have more information. If you don’t know for sure what it is, don’t change the tags. If something seems fishy, add a “fixme=problem description” tag. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Oct 13, 2022, 10:36 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel <> g...@lexort.com> >: > >> a several-acre parcel with >> a house and some trees is still landuse=residential on all of it, >> > > > it depends, if this means a big residential garden or other use that is > clearly associable with the people living there, then yes, if there are other > significant uses (particularly commercially relevant uses) like breeding > animals, growing fruit or vegetables for sale (significantly more than the > residents use themselves), or some other workplace, the landuse could be > split, it is up to the discreetion of the mapper. > And single parcel may be actually partially landuse=residential and partially natural=wood (and this areas can also overlap). It is kind of subjective, but there are clear cases for each variant. BTW I added note to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Alanduse%3Dresidential&type=revision&diff=2419649&oldid=2408263 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Alanduse%3Dcommercial&type=revision&diff=2419648&oldid=2408203 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Alanduse%3Dindustrial&type=revision&diff=2419647&oldid=2269306 to clarify that it is for current use, and if area is zoned differently then it does not matter. Field is landuse=farmland - also when zoned as industrial area or scheduled for residential construction. As usual, feel free to edit wiki to improve or fix what I wrote. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
sent from a phone > On 13 Oct 2022, at 21:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Field is landuse=farmland - also when zoned as industrial area or scheduled > for > residential construction. interestingly not. I never found this particularly logical, but this situation is landuse=greenfield. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
Oct 14, 2022, 03:31 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 13 Oct 2022, at 21:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Field is landuse=farmland - also when zoned as industrial area or scheduled >> for >> residential construction. >> > > > interestingly not. I never found this particularly logical, but this > situation is landuse=greenfield. > It can be also additionally mapped as landuse=greenfield (and landuse=greenfield has own issues) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
