On 29 May 2015 at 12:27, John Willis wrote:
>
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 7:35 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
> There are no man made trees in
>> the forest, they all grow naturally.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Man can plant a natural tree - or it could self-seed.
>
>
> In osm there is a distinction between cultivated
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 29, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
> W dniu 29.05.2015 3:54, John Willis napisał(a):
>
>> Currently, building=industrial +landuse=industrial has usurped
>> man_made=works completely.
>
> I think of building=industrial like a building=church - it's just a
On May 29, 2015, at 7:35 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>> There are no man made trees in
>> the forest, they all grow naturally.
>
> Man can plant a natural tree - or it could self-seed.
In osm there is a distinction between cultivated and constructed. We already do
this will all other "cultivated"
W dniu 29.05.2015 3:54, John Willis napisał(a):
Currently, building=industrial +landuse=industrial has usurped
man_made=works completely.
I think of building=industrial like a building=church - it's just a
form, we need some way to describe the function, just like we do with
amenity=place_o
On 29 May 2015 at 07:36, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
> pmailkeey wrote:
> > johnw wrote:
> >> Forest=natural ?
> >> isn’t that natural=wood?
> > I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest!
>
> landuse=forest and natural=wood are a poor example for historical
> reasons, when some thought tha
2015-05-29 8:36 GMT+02:00 Lauri Kytömaa :
> landuse=forest and natural=wood are a poor example for historical
> reasons, when some thought that natural=wood together with
> landuse=forest was "redundant", when it's not:
>
+1, also because inside a natural=wood/forest object (an entity with a
nam
On 29 May 2015 at 03:06, John Willis wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 28, 2015, at 6:22 PM, AYTOUN RALPH
> wrote:
>
> And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the
> start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is
>
> landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing
On 29 May 2015 at 03:27, John Willis wrote:
>
>
> > On May 29, 2015, at 11:02 AM, pmailkeey .
> wrote:
> >
> > And that ties in nicely with my thoughts of removing the words and
> generating tags and values by symbols !
>
> Mapping by emoji! Just put a hot dog symbol in the hot-dog stand!
>
> ^_
pmailkeey wrote:
> johnw wrote:
>> Forest=natural ?
>> isn’t that natural=wood?
> I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest!
landuse=forest and natural=wood are a poor example for historical
reasons, when some thought that natural=wood together with
landuse=forest was "redundant", wh
> On May 29, 2015, at 11:02 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
> And that ties in nicely with my thoughts of removing the words and generating
> tags and values by symbols !
Mapping by emoji! Just put a hot dog symbol in the hot-dog stand!
^_^
For getting data into the database from novice mappers
> On May 28, 2015, at 6:22 PM, AYTOUN RALPH wrote:
>
> And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the start
> point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is
>
> landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the whole
> range of educat
On 29 May 2015 at 02:54, John Willis wrote:
>
>
> > On May 28, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> >
> > while "man_made" covers technical structures and facilities (like
> factories, chimneys, flagpoles, lighthouses, silos, ...).
>
> If there is one big change I would like to make
On 28 May 2015 at 07:28, johnw wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM, pmailkeey .
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the post, John.
>
>
> Thanks for reading ^^
>
>
> How about:
>
> Forest=natural ?
>
>
> isn’t that natural=wood?
>
I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest!
>
>
> or fore
> On May 28, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> while "man_made" covers technical structures and facilities (like factories,
> chimneys, flagpoles, lighthouses, silos, ...).
If there is one big change I would like to make it would be to greatly reduce
the scope of man_made=
W dniu 28.05.2015 11:22, AYTOUN RALPH napisał(a):
And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the
start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is
landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the
whole range of educational facilities.
And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the start
point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is
landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the whole
range of educational facilities.
using landuse=school excludes universities, colleges
2015-05-28 8:28 GMT+02:00 johnw :
> How about:
>
> Forest=natural ?
>
>
> isn’t that natural=wood?
>
>
> or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted
> forest].
>
>
> A forest is a man-altered area, so i believe “forest” already implies
> man-used. But it is not man_made
> On May 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
> Thanks for the post, John.
>
Thanks for reading ^^
> I think the problem is the tagging method. Why does there have to be two
> parts to it ?
beyond necessary database syntax (key=value), This is a flat vs hierarchical
question. Do we
I also forgot to mention that Mapnik also shows all shops that do not have
their own icon with a dot.
You cannot do that when you drop the shop-'category'
regards
m.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
>
>> There are no
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
> There are no categorizes in the OSM data, believing that will not be
> helpfull to you when you try to use OSM data. The current way of
> sometime using the key as an category isn't working that well. Or I
> might be wrong I don't write tha
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
>> amenity=pub -> pub=yes
>> shop=travel_agent -> travel_agent=yes
>> office=travel_agent -> travel_agent=yes
>
>
> So you want to replace shop=bakery by bakery=yes, shop=butcher with
> butcher
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> amenity=pub -> pub=yes
> shop=travel_agent -> travel_agent=yes
> office=travel_agent -> travel_agent=yes
>
So you want to replace shop=bakery by bakery=yes, shop=butcher with
butcher=yes, etc. ?
This means that you cannot write a query that re
W dniu 18.05.2015 11:18, David Earl napisał(a):
On Mon, 18 May 2015 at 00:40 pmailkeey .
wrote:
Unfortunately change is inevitable and it happens to Microsoft and
Google customers.
Yes, of course. But they go to considerable lengths to provide upward
compatibility, and when they can't, they
My apologies for that inaccuracy Richard
On 18 May 2015 at 10:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> AYTOUN RALPH wrote:
> > OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail
> > can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see
> > specialist areas creating their own detailed "
AYTOUN RALPH wrote:
> OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail
> can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see
> specialist areas creating their own detailed "layer" of OSM such as the
> Cycle Map
Where "only now starting to realise" and "starting to see" m
On Mon, 18 May 2015 at 00:40 pmailkeey . wrote:
> Unfortunately change is inevitable and it happens to Microsoft and Google
> customers.
>
Yes, of course. But they go to considerable lengths to provide upward
compatibility, and when they can't, they provide a migration path and
controlled change
On 17 May 2015 at 14:12, David Earl wrote:
> This is no way to treat consumers of map data. If you make major changes
> like this, anyone using the map has to scramble to change their rendering
> code. If there's no semblance of upward compatibility, people will lose
> interest in OSM because it
Just exactly how can a data consumer be “abstracted from our tags”? Where in a
typical rendering process could this abstraction be placed where it would be
automatic and transparent to the people maintaining the data consumers?
For example, I generate PDF/paper trail maps for an organization usi
I agree with this, but I think consumers should be abstrated from our tags
too. It shouldn't be impossible to change the meaning of a tag. But untill
such abstraction is made, no major changes should be made.
Janko
ned, 17. svi 2015. 15:14 David Earl je napisao:
It shouldn't matter what the tag
This is no way to treat consumers of map data. If you make major changes
like this, anyone using the map has to scramble to change their rendering
code. If there's no semblance of upward compatibility, people will lose
interest in OSM because it is just too hard to maintain, and if there is
any kin
I believe that the discussion regarding amenity v landuse should consider
that where amenity designates the actual use of the area as in
amenity=school, landuse designates the general use of the land... in the
case of the school it should be landuse=education, the same as you get
landuse=residenti
W dniu 16.05.2015 18:41, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
There surely is some logical structure in the current osm tagging
system and yes, you either look up the tags or learn them, or you will
have to use presets ;-)
Presets are good! But I think their primary purpose is for thing you
have n
I use natural=tree for tagging free standing trees that have some special
significance: they are separate from other trees, larger than other trees,
or otherwise prominent in the landscape.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 9:42 AM, pmailkeey .
wrote:
>
>
> On 16 May 2015 at 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
On 16 May 2015 at 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . :
> >
> > Forest=natural ?
> >
> > or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted
> forest].
>
> or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit presumptuous ;-)
> Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . :
>
> landuse=golf_course
> leisure+golf_course
> man_made=golf_course
>
> Surely all three of these are 'obvious' when referring to a golf course ?
you can think of landuse as a more or less fixed list, see here:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.or
> Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . :
>
> Forest=natural ?
>
> or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted
> forest].
or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit presumptuous ;-)
how about
landcover=trees?
Cheers
Martin
___
On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
> area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get
> landuse=building even.
>
>
>
>
> Uhhh. *What?* This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then.
> Everywhere is clearly not a landuse
W dniu 15.05.2015 14:52, Daniel Koć napisał(a):
And note, that it's hard for us, advanced mappers! But I guess this
project has a long tail - that means advanced users are just a tiny
(even if important) part of community. So most of the work is done by
casual mappers. They have iD as a tool and
W dniu 15.05.2015 19:35, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
yes, it is planned to have a real area datatype, sooner or later.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas [1]
Great, that'd be even better! However I guess this technical step will
be a simple transition and we may still
> On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
> area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get
> landuse=building even.
>
Uhhh. What? This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is
clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor desig
2015-05-15 19:22 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :
> I think it was a clever move, sparing us additional typing and storage,
> but still in reality area is a basic concept with some exceptions, rather
> than special property of GIS objects.
yes, it is planned to have a real area datatype, sooner or later.
W dniu 15.05.2015 18:33, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
the area tag is sort of a special tag, it is used as a geometry flag
to say whether a closed way is linear or a polygon.
That is how we are used to think about it, but it's just a convention.
If you flip the point of view, you can say a
2015-05-15 17:23 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :
> I see the area=* namespace as the most interesting and realistic
> candidate, because it's really basic word/object, and while it may look
> like a highly conflicting one (almost 700k uses already! -
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area), in realit
2015-05-15 17:23 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :
> I don't think it's simply "if we don't have it, we don't need it, because
> if we need it, we would have it already". =} You probably underestimate the
> power of inertia and "good enough" system.
yes, I agree. What I meant was: to tag an university th
W dniu 15.05.2015 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
either one of the available tags fit for your purpose or you will have
to invent a new tag, that's how OSM works. The situation would be
Sure, I know! =}
However when you have only few fixed categories, it's much harder to
invent a pro
> Am 15.05.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Daniel Koć :
>
> Speaking of language/cultural differences: even I don't know how to tag
> "higher schools" in Poland - as universities or colleges maybe - because
> "further/continuing education" idea is simply not used here, but we have no
> common "univer
W dniu 15.05.2015 13:02, pmailkeey . napisał(a):
My concern is that OSM is/should be open to all. For it to succeed at
that, it needs to be easily understood by all - but even I would
+1 - I couldn't agree more!
10+ years of just adding more types of objects makes a lot of unneeded
cruft, bec
> Am 15.05.2015 um 12:17 schrieb p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
>
> It is way more than a shop, probably the best example of an amenity there is.
completely agree
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/ta
My concern is that OSM is/should be open to all. For it to succeed at that,
it needs to be easily understood by all - but even I would struggle to
define 'amenity' - it's not a familiar word to most people and it's a
problem osm-wide with nomenclature like 'node' for point and 'way' for line
- whic
On Fri May 15 10:41:00 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> > to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building.
True, but a pub is much more than a business . It is as much a community centre
as a business, the c
+1
Jonathan
---
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2015 10:41
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff a
2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
>> amenity=pub is really just pub(=yes) etc.
>>
>
> That is a better example .. to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff
> and is a building. As are restaurants, petrol stations etc.
>
No
The real question is:
At what scale is the "Amenity" an amenity of something?
This variable answer is the source of he confusion.
At the beginning, it was the amenity of the town. Amenity=school and
amenity=hospital is a great example.
But tagging complexity quickly grew in some objects (and
2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building.
to me a pub is a business, sells food and drinks and is typically in a
building (there might be also pubs in tents or on ships, etc.)
I feel its pointless to question the
On 15 May 2015 at 01:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/05/2015 9:59 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The only reason for categories is to allow subcategories like 'type' - so
>> that you know it's a type of highway or a type of building.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not the "only reason'?
> It is
On 15/05/2015 9:59 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
The only reason for categories is to allow subcategories like 'type' -
so that you know it's a type of highway or a type of building.
Not the "only reason'?
It is usefull to gather like things together ... make them;
easier to find for data entr
On 15 May 2015 at 00:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
>> As there are very few things on OSM that aren't 'amenities' I think the
>> amenity tag is valueless
>>
>> amenity=mountain
>>
> Current tag natural=peak
>
>> amenity=river
>>
> Curre
On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
As there are very few things on OSM that aren't 'amenities' I think
the amenity tag is valueless
amenity=mountain
Current tag natural=peak
amenity=river
Current tag waterway=river
amenity=building
Current tag building=
amenity=shop
Current t
58 matches
Mail list logo
