Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

I believe that a key point is that these threshing floors have protected status in Portugal and Spain due to their historical significance. The suggestion of using 'historic[al]' is to represent this. In other parts of the world, where it is in current use and not ancient/protected then perhaps it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

Nov 6, 2020, 01:03 by elga...@agol.dk: > Joseph Eisenberg: > >> Generally OpenStreetMap data is not updated frequently enough by mappers and >> database users for us to map temporary states (e.g. anything which lasts >> less than 6 months). Many database users will download a data extract for

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

heritage, heritage:operator, ref:??? appear to be used to tag official heritage status See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage Nov 6, 2020, 09:26 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com: > I believe that a key point is that these threshing floors have protected > status in Portugal and Spain

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

Am Do., 5. Nov. 2020 um 13:59 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > This may be a losing battle but I'll point out (once again) that historic > is not > a synonym for old, disused or repurposed. > I agree, the word "historic" isn't always a synonymon for old , but the things that we tag in "historic=*" are

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 08:41, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Is there a subtag to distinguish an historical/protected amenity from a > straight/unprotected one? > heritage=* and associated tags. For Portugal, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage#Portugal For Spain, see https://wiki.op

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Do., 5. Nov. 2020 um 13:59 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > >> This may be a losing battle but I'll point out (once again) that historic >> is not >> a synonym for old, disused or repurposed. >> > > I agree, the word "historic" isn't always a

Re: [Tagging] What is a saltbox?

Feb 12, 2020, 20:39 by o...@lepiller.eu: > Le 12 février 2020 14:26:26 GMT-05:00, Michael Brandtner via Tagging > a écrit : > >Hi, > >we have a big inconsistency between different wiki pages and editors > >how we define the roof shape "saltbox".  > >1) A saltbox is a roof with a tilted part at

[Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hello everyone, newcomer here! I've been a casual contributing mapper for a couple of years here in Sweden. Only since 2018 :-O, I thought it was longer, and during this time I've made 1700 edits mostly using iD, just started using JOSM for some more complex edits. Anyway, I recently tried to

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

All great points there, I've ran into many of those myself. If you're interested in helping work on solutions to these, discussion here is probably the best place to start, once ideas gain some momentum you can start a tagging proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process. Going thr

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

A gravel area tag/tagging convention is needed. One use I’ve seen is highways in particular seem to have gravel separator between the actual road and usually grass. Standardizing a area (a way) with just the surface=gravel tag could work. El El vie, nov. 6, 2020 a la(s) 12:34, Anders Torger escri

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 19:31 by and...@torger.se: > Hello everyone, newcomer here! > > I've been a casual contributing mapper for a couple of years here in Sweden. > Only since 2018 :-O, I thought it was longer, and during this time I've made > 1700 edits mostly using iD, just started using JOSM for so

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

This is not correct. Threshing floors do not have protected status in Portugal. There are some that are included in open air museums and maybe in archaelogical sites, but there are thousands all over the country and only maybe 10 or 20 are "protected". As I said, they're still used, although rarel

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> We do not distinguish "truly historic" wayshrines from "ordinary" >> wayshrines. >> > > We currently do not make the distinction because we lack the tagging to > do so. That is

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I'd love to help out if the workload and chance of success was reasonable, but I'm a bit wary about the tagging proposal process. Most of my mapping contributions is simple things like correcting and adding roads so all the various online route planners (and indeed bike computers) that use OSM in

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 21:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > ** Support for group naming is limited. It's here very common that several > smaller islands are named as a group, smaller ponds are named as a group > etc, without having individual names. Ther

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Sorry for replying to myself, but I forgot to mention one important aspect that I myself hadn't realized until recently: it's seems to be a whole lot about processing power too. Name tag scaling and placement strategies are expensive algorithms compared to what we the default style does now, an

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 04:34, Anders Torger wrote: > > ** Due to limitations in area-based name tagging the map looks empty > just when zoomed out a little, as names disappear almost directly, so > despite detailed mapping and tagging the overview map is not as useful > as it could be. While the r

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I agree, but one renders (in some way at least), the other doesn't. Which one will the casual mapper choose? I'm a bit impatient and like to see results now. The cluster tag was drafted 2015, the group tag 2018. None of them render as far as I know. /Anders On 2020-11-06 23:10, Martin Kopp

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 23:21 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > I have not understood why there are these CPU limits, if it's "just" due > to under-financed server infrastructure, or if it is a problem that can't > be solved regardless of server infrastructure. As a layman one would think > that some

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing the same objects >>> having more or less historic

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 23:28 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > I agree, but one renders (in some way at least), the other doesn't. Which > one will the casual mapper choose? I'm a bit impatient and like to see > results now. > > The cluster tag was drafted 2015, the group tag 2018. None of them rende

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Good point, so there's a balance. However, how important is it that update of the map is immediate for every database update? To me it seems more desirable to have a higher quality cartography at the price of a lower update rate. Longer tile generation times won't affect serving rate, just how qui

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On 2020-11-06 23:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 23:28 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : I agree, but one renders (in some way at least), the other doesn't. Which one will the casual mapper choose? I'm a bit impatient and like to see results now. The cluster tag was drafted

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Welcome! If you do choose to go down the path of the proposal process, I would potentially be willing to assist in the proposal drafting. It is certainly a bunch of work to get a proposal through, but it's hard because it's worth doing. I have a proposal in process now and a few others (hopefull

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

Hi all, Thanks for the discussion. Lately the open questions center on formulating tags for pickup/dropoff points or areas as opposed to roads. Some of the latest: - How should a designated curb location be indicated for rideshare access? How might this apply to a point or area (eg parking lot

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I am also very much a newcomer only having mapped for a few months, and so far I have constantly been running into the same problems that are mentioned in this thread. I am mapping in Denmark where we have high quality official information on place names. However, adding much of this information

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

The documented tag for that is place=locality, an in populated named place. it's rendered and in Nomatnium. On Sat, 7 Nov 2020, 12:44 pm Martin Søndergaard, wrote: > I am also very much a newcomer only having mapped for a few months, and > so far I have constantly been running into the same pr

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 23:39 by and...@torger.se: > > One example is making a multipolygon instead of the semantically superior > group, as multipolygon actually renders. > > Why multipolygon is supposed to be semantically inferior? ___ Tagging mailing list Ta

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 23:10 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 21:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >>> ** Support for group naming is limited. It's here very common that several >>> smaller islands are named as a group, smaller ponds a

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

> some of these algorithms could run on GPU clusters these days No matter where code actually runs you need to have and handle this servers. For reference basic requirements for a render node include: 80 GB RAM (at least; better 128 GB); 6 or more CPU cores (12+ with HyperThreading, CPU year 2011

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-07, št, 00:41 Anders Torger rašė: > However, how important is it that update of the map is immediate for every > database update? <...> OSM-Carto is a style whose purpose is to visualise OSM data to MAPPERS, do it quickly (fast feedback is essential). OSM-Carto also has a requirement to