Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> On Feb 7, 2020, at 7:48 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > If area=yes is added to say a leisure area surrounded by a hedge, that is a > mapping mistake. If that results in the area displaying as a hedge area, the > mapper has to correct that, not the renderer. exactly! If I want a hedge arou

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 09-02-20 12:36, Peter Elderson wrote: > For the record, I am not opposed to renderers, data users or toolmakers > reporting a problem or an improvement request and asking the taggers > list to come up with a solution everyone can live with. Information in > the database should be renderable and

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

OSM Carto stopped rendering barrier=hedge, area=yes as a hedge barrier area, without proper announcement. Immediately this was reported as a problem, because it is established and documente tagging and many people noticed the change. The right way to handle this is to revert this particular change

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

I don't understand why mappers in Zeeland are considered less reliable than those in South Holland? Isn't all of the Netherlands below sea level, consisting entirely of polders and dykes? ;-) (Just joking... I know there are hills some tens of meters above sea level...) http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 06-02-20 13:29, Peter Elderson wrote: > Joseph Eisenberg >: > > The Netherlands has been claimed as a place where barrier=hedge areas > are used properly and are necessary. I have already downloaded one > whole provicne, Zeeland, which has quite

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 07-02-20 17:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:> interestingly, for paths and roads there is also an area=yes variant > (which is likely more common than the newer "area:highway" tag, which > has different semantics). To be precise: `area=yes` on a `highway=*` means that the whole area is routable,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Feb 7, 2020, 17:08 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> Feb 7, 2020, 15:53 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> Then we give up on entirely sensible ideas because Carto insists on a "no >>> synonyms" ru

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Am Fr., 7. Feb. 2020 um 11:26 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann : > I currently tend towards a broader solution of dropping rendering of all > barrier tags on polygons. great, this would make it very clear that there is indeed some problem with the tagging. Although I guess carto would get a lot of

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Am Fr., 7. Feb. 2020 um 11:03 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > 1) The tag `area=yes` is only supposed to mean "this closed way is an > area, not a line", and is only used when this is not already obvious > from other tags. > > It is not necessary to add `area=yes` when

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging : > If you think that there is broad support for landcover proposal - feel > free to > start vote on the landcover proposal. > How about changing established tagging for hedge areas - was there a proposal? What did it propose? I must have missed it somehow. _

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Feb 7, 2020, 15:53 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > This list regularly suggests things like replacing landuse=grass with > landcover=grass, and proposes that editors make the appropriate changes. > > Vocal

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Feb 7, 2020, 15:53 by pla16...@gmail.com: > This list regularly suggests things like replacing landuse=grass with > landcover=grass, and proposes that editors make the appropriate changes. > Vocal part of the list that seems minority to me. > Then we give up on entirely sensible ideas because

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Feb 7, 2020, 15:48 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > >> it would make a lot of sense for OSM-Carto to stop indicating this is valid >> tagging. >> > > it would make more sense to > 1) decide what a valid/ideal schema is. > 2) decide what a inv

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:50, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 07 February 2020, Peter Elderson wrote: > > E.g. if a solution would be to tag hedge areas as natural=hedge > > or landcover=hedge, then the change path would be for the renderer to > > temporarily render the old AND the new taggin

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > it would make a lot of sense for OSM-Carto to stop indicating this is valid > tagging. it would make more sense to 1) decide what a valid/ideal schema is. 2) decide what a invalid/bad schema is. 3) making sure that the new schema is at least

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I currently tend towards a broader solution of dropping rendering of all > barrier tags on polygons. Aaaarghh! No. Nononononono. "Oh dear, I've just made a change that upsets a lot of mappers. I'll deal with the problem b

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

for me, this discussion can be closed if you start rendering natural=hedge in the same colour as barrier=hedge. I would have been nice that we just had such an alternative the moment you changed the rendering. regards m. ___ Tagging mailing list Taggin

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Christoph Hormann : > On Friday 07 February 2020, Peter Elderson wrote: > > E.g. if a solution would be to tag hedge areas as natural=hedge > > or landcover=hedge, then the change path would be for the renderer to > > temporarily render the old AND the new tagging, so mappers can edit > > the old

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Friday 07 February 2020, Peter Elderson wrote: > E.g. if a solution would be to tag hedge areas as natural=hedge > or landcover=hedge, then the change path would be for the renderer to > temporarily render the old AND the new tagging, so mappers can edit > the old tagging to the new tagging. We

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Christoph Hormann : > I originally was under the impression that > use of barrier tags as a secondary tag for landuse polygons etc. was > consensus among mappers based on the fairly large use numbers for that > (>350k) Correct. > but it quite clearly isn't. Yes it is, but an explicit area=ye

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

oseph Eisenberg : > 2) Many hedges which were mapped like areas are currently missing > `area=yes` tags. In this comment > ( > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3844#issuecomment-582692389 > ) > you can see that over 90% of the `barrier=hedge` closed ways in a > Dutch provin

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Friday 07 February 2020, Marc Gemis wrote: > > I still do not understand why area=yes is a bad tag. I never said it was. I said area=yes currently has one *and only one* meaning - to indicate a closed way is a polygon. Since this is such a fundamental low level distinction in the OSM data m

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> I still do not understand why area=yes is a bad tag... > you have problems to implement it in your workflow. That is not correct. It is simple enough to check for the presence or abscenss of `area=yes` prior to rendering. See an attempt at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pul

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:27 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Thursday 06 February 2020, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > And I want to end with a quote from {1] > > > > "My approach to this matter has been – from the beginning of my > > contributions to OSM-Carto – to regard the role and task of the >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

W dniu 06.02.2020 o 17:25, Christoph Hormann pisze: > Rendering such in OSM-Carto would not be mapper support, it would be > sabotage. As much as I disagree with you on what should be rendered or not (and why), I understand how sure you are of you about your opinions. But the thing that bothered

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Thursday 06 February 2020, Marc Gemis wrote: > > And please keep in mind that - as i mentioned - barrier=hedge is > > not the dominant tag for mapping hedges with polygons in the first > > place - as i have shown with various links earlier. > > I only clicked on a few of your examples and had to

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Joseph Eisenberg : > The Netherlands has been claimed as a place where barrier=hedge areas > are used properly and are necessary. I have already downloaded one > whole provicne, Zeeland, which has quite complete landcover and > landuse mapping due to an import. In Zeeland there are 149 uses of > `

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:49:23PM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 2/5/20 17:15, Lionel Giard wrote: > > In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main > > tag was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in > > most examples when i started mapping). Thus m

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 06-02-20 05:22, Marc Gemis wrote: > My interpretation is the same as Paul's. Including the not thought > through part, as I never needed that. Mine too. There is only a subset of barrier-tags where `area=yes` makes sense, like hedge and (city-)wall. ___

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> On Feb 6, 2020, at 5:14 AM, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > Keeping the rendering for `barrier=hedge` plus `area=yes` for the time > being seems sensible and in keeping with the general use of those two > tags in combination. +1 Javbw___ Tagging mailing l

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 10:09 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > It isn't wrong to use barrier=hedge, since it does provide a visual > barrier It also provides a physical barrier. Try riding a bike through one, or sleeping on one, or taking a shortcut through one! Hedges are physical barriers made of p

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 2/5/20 17:15, Lionel Giard wrote: > In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main > tag was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in > most examples when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to > map them separately (one way for the barri

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> And please keep in mind that - as i mentioned - barrier=hedge is not the > dominant tag for mapping hedges with polygons in the first place - as i > have shown with various links earlier. I only clicked on a few of your examples and had to figure out which areas you meant. But they were outside

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:16 AM Lionel Giard wrote: > > In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main tag was > wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in most examples > when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to map them > separately (

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

My interpretation is the same as Paul's. Including the not thought through part, as I never needed that. On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:24 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 21:09, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> >> >> closed way, barrier=fence > > > Linear fence > >> closed way, barrier=fenc

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main tag was > wrong... I agree that this usage is ambiguous. However, that usage is very common, and is suggested on Key:fenced: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fenced - "Whether the outer perimeter of something is fence

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main tag was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in most examples when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to map them separately (one way for the barrier and one way for the other main tag, even i

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Le 05.02.20 à 22:08, Christoph Hormann a écrit : > (either 'invalid', '1d barrier' or '2d barrier'): Here is my view AND I known that osm consensus is not that : > closed way, barrier=fence 1d barrier > closed way, barrier=fence, area=yes 2d barrier > closed way, barrier=fence, leisure=playgr

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote: > > What would help make the data clearer (regardless of this > discussion).  For example, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QqU is where > the same object is used to represent both an amenity and a hedge in > most of England and Wales.  There are only

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 21:09, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > closed way, barrier=fence > Linear fence closed way, barrier=fence, area=yes > Not sensible. Fences are linear structures. Tagging error. closed way, barrier=fence, leisure=playground > Playground with a fence around it. closed way

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Paul Allen wrote: > > > disagreement about the meaning of certain tagging to in case of > > doubt opt for not rendering something compared to rendering > > something in a potentially misleading way. That would mean > > following Paul's > > Ummm, wasn't me. I don't r

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 20:55, Christoph Hormann wrote: I am generally inclined to follow the principle in case there is > disagreement about the meaning of certain tagging to in case of doubt > opt for not rendering something compared to rendering something in a > potentially misleading way. That

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Not replying to anyone in particular but it seems there is a lot of dysfunctional communication here due to people focusing on something very specific without making up their mind (or at least not communicating their view) on the overall subject of the semantics of barrier mapping. Therefore

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 05/02/2020 19:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: - in other words: Special casing exactly the situation in question to be treated as an exception. Hedges historically were treated as areas if appropriate, whereas other barriers were not. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > But that is not in any way sustainable and it would be highly > > confusing for mappers because the conditions resulting in this > > rendering would be unique and could not be derived from any general > > principles. > > I understand the reasoni

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 05-02-20 20:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: > But that is not in any way sustainable and it would be highly > confusing for mappers because the conditions resulting in this > rendering would be unique and could not be derived from any general > principles. I understand the reasoning, but what m

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday, 5 February 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 16:11, Paul Allen ha > > scritto: > > > > 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render > > as before, > > > +1, any object with area=yes should be consid

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

sent from a phone > Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 16:11, Paul Allen ha > scritto: > > 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render > as before, +1, any object with area=yes should be considered an area. > a hedge that has area. This would exclude the cases like > lei

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Le 05.02.20 à 18:41, Andy Townsend a écrit : > On 05/02/2020 17:24, Christoph Hormann wrote: > About the "removing tags where they may clash" point > "if something is mapped as a brewery and also as > tourist attraction, remove the tourist attraction tags if osm-carto goal is to trying to give a

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote: > [...] > > Basically it's saying "if something is mapped as a brewery and also > as tourist attraction, remove the tourist attraction tags prior to > rendering so the renderer renders it as a brewery, not a tourist > attraction". > > Obviously a

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 05:28:03PM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > > the semantic ambiguity of the > 350k cases where barrier tags are > > > currently used as a secondary tag on landuse/leisure/etc. polygons > > > to incidate the polygon is en

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 05/02/2020 17:24, Christoph Hormann wrote: With "only feasible alternative" i means the only alternative that has even a remote chance for consensus among the maintainers. Ah! OK - that's much more understandable. About the "removing tags where they may clash" point, here's an example: ht

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote: > > As explained there the only feasible alternative would be to stop > > rendering barrier tags on polygon features universally. > > No, it's not the only alternative - another would be "where there are > conflicting tags, decide which one to ren

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 05/02/2020 14:46, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote: It doesn't sound like a tagging issue to me; I'd suggest that the renderer that made this change did so in error.  Is using a different renderer an option until it is fixed (perhaps the Humanitarian

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 16:29, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > A hedge is not the same as bushes or trees. > > I never claimed it to be. What i did say is that what is mapped with > barrier=hedge on polygons with a different meaning than 'this polygon > is enclosed by a hedge' is elsewhere predominan

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > the semantic ambiguity of the > 350k cases where barrier tags are > > currently used as a secondary tag on landuse/leisure/etc. polygons > > to incidate the polygon is enclosed by a linear barrier. > > The PR specifically removes the filled rend

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

+1 Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:37 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende > geschreven: > > On 05-02-2020 16:10, Paul Allen wrote: >> 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render >> as before, a hedge that has area. > > There are some additional tags that should be

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

Are there many correctly tagged features with the combi barrier=hedge & area=yes where area=yes could be meant to specify something else than the hedge? Most polygon features are implicit areas, I think? Peter Elderson > Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:22 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende > geschreven: >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 05-02-2020 16:10, Paul Allen wrote: > 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render > as before, a hedge that has area. There are some additional tags that should be allowed for. Including (mainly?) `height=*`. > 5) Introduce, and render, landcover=hedge so we can tag an ob

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 05-02-2020 15:46, Christoph Hormann wrote: > the semantic ambiguity of the > 350k cases where barrier tags are currently > used as a secondary tag on > landuse/leisure/etc. polygons to incidate the polygon is enclosed by a > linear barrier. The PR specifically removes the filled rendering fr

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 14:48, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > 1) remove all rendering of barrier tags on polygons > 2) mappers in a concerted effort resolving the semantic ambiguity of the > >350k cases where barrier tags are currently used as a secondary tag on > landuse/leisure/etc. polygons to inc

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote: > > It doesn't sound like a tagging issue to me; I'd suggest that the > renderer that made this change did so in error.  Is using a different > renderer an option until it is fixed (perhaps the Humanitarian tiles > linked from openstreetmap.org)?

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 13:21, Andy Townsend wrote: > > It doesn't sound like a tagging issue to me; I'd suggest that the > renderer that made this change did so in error. Is using a different > renderer an option until it is fixed (perhaps the Humanitarian tiles > linked from openstreetmap.org)?

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On 05/02/2020 13:02, Jeroen Hoek wrote: This update has the unfortunate side-effect of breaking the rendering of over 1 hedges in the Netherlands. This means that hedges are often mapped as areas, using the documented tag pair of `barrier=hedge` plus `area=yes`: In this case sounds like

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

This update has the unfortunate side-effect of breaking the rendering of over 1 hedges in the Netherlands. We have been very fortunate to have access to highly detailed mapping sources via our government, including both satellite images and tile-services for street-level features, including hed

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 12:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > That appears to be a "shrubbery" in British English, around a tree. For some values of "shrubbery." In some circles, a shrubbery lines a winding path through a garden, it's not just an area of shrubs. > It isn't wrong to use barrier=hedg

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

That appears to be a "shrubbery" in British English, around a tree. It isn't wrong to use barrier=hedge, since it does provide a visual barrier and you will probably want to walk around it. But there is not a very well established way to micro-map very small areas of shrubs and bushes like this.