Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Good point about "deprecated" and "obsolete". The status "deprecated" is much more common; it's been used 115 times and has a well-used list: But "obsolete" is only used 6 times, and seems to mean the same thing as "deprecated". Perhaps we can just edit these 6 features and remove the status to s

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 07:51, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for > osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above > 7. > > None of the higher values is used very frequently,

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 10:03, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But "obsolete" is only used 6 times, and seems to mean the same thing > as "deprecated". Perhaps we can just edit these 6 features and remove > the status to simplify things? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cat

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Saturday 27 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Please take a minute to review the new page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status > > [...] A bit of a general remark here - the OSM wiki has for quite some time been torn between being an attempt to document the established mapp

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 10:20 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please take a minute to review the new page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status > Overall, this looks pretty good! I am in favor of documenting the status of tags and this wiki page is a goo

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 11:12, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > ultimately > means recommended by those who have dominance over editing the wiki who are they? Everybody can modify the wiki (and indeed from my experience the wiki is more the sum of many individual, punctual and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 02:36, Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a > clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like > leisure=state_park > +1 I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental informatio

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Correction: obsolete is only used 6 times with tags and 0 keys at the moment, but "discardable" is also used with 7 keys in addition to 1 tag, so that's 8 times. The "discardable" status is clearly different from "deprecated" as you mentioned. >> Perhaps there should be a wiki page created that d

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

I think Christoph brings up a very good point. If I understand correctly, he wasn't accusing the new page of saying "this is the right way to use statuses", since it just describes and explains how the current "status" feature is currently used. But rather, he was saying that by just describing t

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Sunday 28 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Christoph, do you have any ideas about how we could be more inclusive > and make it easier for mappers from other countries to create and > document new tags? I think emphasizing and reaffirming the fact that the wiki is to document the de facto

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen wrote: > > I have an intense dislike of numbers being used for > anything other than numeric values because they are not amenable to human > inspection. Sure, > editors can unobfuscate things by using an internal lookup table, but tha

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Paul Allen wrote: > I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental information that data > consumers can make > use of as they wish (including ignoring it). I have an intense dislike of > numbers being used for > anything other than numeric values because

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 15:37, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I don't think there is a reasonable verifiable way to define a > sub-classification among tags that are widely accepted to be used with > a certain meaning but that have never successfully gone through a > proposal

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be > reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, > for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain > “admin_level” also in

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known, so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially if the operator=* is not the same. > 'strict_nature_reserve', 'wilderness_area', 'national_pa

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I dislike the numeric classification as well. > That's good. We agree on something. :) I dislike 'leisure=state_park' for two reasons. > > First, it preëmpts the 'leisure' tag. It turns out that there are > State Parks that are also somethin

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

I don't think it would be easy to automate. My impression is that the "de facto" status tags and keys area usually: 1) In use for a long time. Most are been around since 2008 or sooner, but at least for several years if newer. This requires checking http://taghistory.raifer.tech or old database

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 17:34, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known, > so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the > administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially > if th

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Approved - Line attachments

Hi all, Voting period on line attachments proposal is now over. 23 pros votes make the new key line_attachment approved, thanks to voters for their support https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_attachments The proposal took approx 1 year to be mature enough for the vote and

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

There are many tags with status 'de facto' indicated that do not meet at least some of your criteria: landuse=meadow landuse=forest natural=wood place=square waterway=drain and there are tags with status 'in use' indicated that at least meet some of the criteria: highway=turning_circle inform

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

28 Jul 2019, 18:33 by o...@imagico.de: > > IMO if those criteria are significant (which i don't doubt as far as > they can be objectively determined) it is much more useful to document > how far a tag meets these criteria individually than to determine an > aggregate score of some sort from

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

28 Jul 2019, 11:12 by o...@imagico.de: > On Saturday 27 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >> Please take a minute to review the new page >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status >> >> Thanks for creating it and submitting it f

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be > reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, > for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain > “admin_level” a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:38 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Second, it pushes the problem down one level. Near me, there are >> 'County Parks' that are functionally pretty much the same as State >> Parks, and even 'County Forests', 'County Nature Prese

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 21:25, Kevin Kenny wrote: But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term. > Instead, the typical State Park is

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> For specific kind of sites (e.g. protected under a specific international >> treaty) we could have specific tags to identify them if desired, e.g. >> protection_context=natura2000 >> or >> protection_context=state_park >> (no

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term. the propos

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: Nevertheless, to some extent, we're dealing with "the language of > OpenStreetMap is UK English as interpreted by Germans," Sounds like the setup for a joke. Or a goat song. Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:42 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 21:25, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks >> by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they >> don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN de

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:47 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > > don't function as 'national park' i

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:56 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes >> to closed ways that are tagged boundary={aboriginal_lands, >> national_park, protected_area} and lack any other keys that

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

“how can a protected_AREA be anything but an area?” Right. Please don’t add area=yes to these features. This tag is only needed for features that can be either a linear feature OR an area, for example barrier=hedge. (Mapping large protected areas mapped as closed ways to relations of type=bounda

[Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

Hello, Sorry for cross posting. I am looking for specific tags for Satellite Dish [1]. I haven't found anything near so far. May be am missing something, else it doesn't exist and might be useful to propose and come handy in some cases. Ever mapped something like this or any idea will be great.

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

I've edited the page: 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny just made, for better English style. 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not recommended". I also removed the suggestion t

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On 29/07/19 15:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I've edited the page: 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny just made, for better English style. 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not r

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

On 29/07/19 15:03, Enock Seth Nyamador wrote: Hello, Sorry for cross posting. I am looking for specific tags for Satellite Dish [1]. I haven't found anything near so far. May be am missing something, else it doesn't exist and might be useful to propose and come handy in some cases. Ever map

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

(Not sent to tagging list) I think the idea was that a tree with a proper name is an important / landmark tree? Perhaps you crazy Europeans name your special trees, eg King George's Oak? The other suggestion was to use "landmark=yes" but this key is also not recommended. Someone needs to check h

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

I looked into this myself, back when I noticed that some large dishes were mistagged as radio telescopes. For huge communications dishes, there is tower:construction=dish to be used with man_made=tower and we even have a satellite-dish style rendering for this at Openstreetmap-carto, for some reas

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

Look at this recent page:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsatellite_dishNote that this tag is 'in use' and has few usage. You can make/revive a proposal in order to approve it (together with man_made=communication(s)_dish?)

[Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:* (namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times. The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is al

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Err .. sent to tagging list, so response here. Not to worry, a little more chatter. (Should there be a wiki edit list? Or would 'we' all then have to join that well as the tagging list? Anyone not want to be part of the discussions on wiki edits possibly of relevance to tagging? ) On 29/07/19

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

One or several wiki edits should stand at the end of every tagging discussion, to document the conclusions made. Tobias On July 29, 2019 8:37:25 AM GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >Err .. sent to tagging list, so response here. Not to worry, a little >more chatter. >(Should ther

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Sounds to me that those pages were incorrectly deleted. Only because someone can tag the abandonedness of a single tag of a feature, doesn't mean that the tag that applies to the whole feature is deprecated. Actually, sine best practice is to map each feature as an own element (unless maybe bot