Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not clear to me which object you are tagging: the highway (osm-way)
> or an area or a node where the frequency is mentioned on a sign or ...
>
>
> The proposal says tagging a way .. so along the road.
>
>
missed that, sorry.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

[Warin]

On 10/03/2015 3:21 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

Hallo Sam,

It's not clear to me which object you are tagging: the highway 
(osm-way) or an area or a node where the frequency is mentioned on a 
sign or ...


The proposal says tagging a way .. so along the road.



regards

m


Here in Australia .. the frequency is not normally stated  .. they use a 
channel number .. That is normally what the CB units indicate on here 
controls, not frequency?


there is a protocol here ..
http://www.southaustralia.com/media/documents/regions/tracks_and_repeater_1910_4wd_A4_web.pdf

Most of the commercial maps simply place the repeater towers on the map. 
Note that deaths have occurred, and will continue to occur on Australian 
'outback' roads. Depending on a simple CB radio is not enough..

http://www.lakeeyreyc.com/coroner.html
Get an EPIRB/PLB for emergency use if you traverse remote areas.



On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Sam Dyck > wrote:


Greetings

This is an RFC for my proposal, which can be found at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Haul_Channel

Thanks

Sam

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

[Marc Gemis]

Hallo Sam,

It's not clear to me which object you are tagging: the highway (osm-way) or
an area or a node where the frequency is mentioned on a sign or ...


regards

m

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Sam Dyck  wrote:

> Greetings
>
> This is an RFC for my proposal, which can be found at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Haul_Channel
>
> Thanks
>
> Sam
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

[Sam Dyck]

Greetings

This is an RFC for my proposal, which can be found at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Haul_Channel

Thanks

Sam
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 09/03/2015, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Possible work around?
>
> Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area?
>
> Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge
>
> Try that and see if it works.

Not rendered yet :
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/436

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use man_made=bridge, it's a great
way to map what's there (see also the bridge relation). But it won't
provide your "get it rendered by osm-carto" fix yet (patches welcome).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> Somehow I come down on the side that railways have enough footprint on the
> current world that
> they belong in OSM proper, unlike say old buildings or former shops.
>
> A abandoned railway slowly evolves from a mappable way, to a series of
> other things, before disappearing
> completely.   But it leaves significant land use patterns on the waterways,
> roadways and buildings it once ran near.
>
> I know it's a messy dividing line.  I see it as important context to
> current day mapping.

That's a fair point, but I've seen it pushed beyond reason too many
times. Often it seems that the contributor used an old map to trace
railway=abandoned without glancing at the satellite imagery (no,
there's nothing left of the raillway when a housing estate with a pond
have been built in its location).

Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then
it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway
tag, you should remove the railway=abandoned tag. Lots of real-world
objects evolve while retaining traits from their previous use. In some
cases that trait can be tagged for itself and kept after the evolution
(deconsecrated building=church for example), but in the case of
railways, the only traits that survive are normally bridges, cuttings
and embankments. Those can be mapped for their own sake, without
resorting to railway=abandoned.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> Ah thanks, I stand corrected. railway=razed would be the tag to discuss.
>
> The broader point is intact.
>

While there is a pretty strong consensus that osm describes the
present (leaving openhistoricalmap for the past), it seems that some
railway contributors like to map the past (that's what 'razed' and
'reused' describe). Railway=razed is the equivalent of keeping the
building=house way after big appartment blocks have been built and
maped in its location. Railway=reused (i believe it's usually tagged
as 'abandoned') is the equivalent of tagging 'this used to be a post
office' after it has been turned into a shoe shop. These comparisons
may be poorly chosen, but you get the idea.

I never understood what made railways different from buildings, shops,
streets etc in that respect. Maybe because it's easyer to deduce where
a railway used to pass than where a cotage used to be ?

To make things worse, a number of enthusiastic contributors have
tagged 'abandoned' what should have been tagged 'razed' (or better:
not mapped at all). This fact contributed to the decision of not
rendering 'abandoned' anymore.


> When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in
> various places, it is super helpful
> to see the context of the prior railroad grade.  It helps in mapping from
> the air and on the ground.
>
> A given railway grade may (and often does) exist as razed, abandoned,
> disused, and reused (e.g. highway=residential or highway=service,
> leisure=park) along it's length.  So how can we represent the former way,
> and the current use of each bit,
> in a rational way?

If there's still a bridge or maybe even an embankment, then
railway=abandoned is fair game (assuming it hasn't turned into, for
example, a highway=track in the meantime). And it'd be nice if
osm-carto rendered these bridges and embankments even though
railway=abandoned isn't (they are working on the former, at least).
These bridges are interesting to the contemporary map user. The fact
that they were built for a railway is only interesting to the
history-inclined map users, which osm-carto has decided not to target.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 09/03/2015, ael  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>> +1, please tag what is on the ground,
>> and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
>
> Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support the
> case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges. A pity that
> it seems to have been dismissed without any real explanation.

Developers like to keep issue/pull discussions on topic, and that
pull's topic was about no longer rendering railway=abandoned, not the
separate issue of rendering underlaying bridges. Two separate issues
were created (and linked to in this thread) to fix rendering of
bridges.

That pull discussion heated up quickly but certainly wasn't low on explanations.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

>
> ...wworthwhile to consider OpenHistoricalMap as a resource for
> recording information about spatial entities that no longer exist in the
> modern
> world. this relieves us of the argument about representing them in OSM.
>

Somehow I come down on the side that railways have enough footprint on the
current world that
they belong in OSM proper, unlike say old buildings or former shops.

A abandoned railway slowly evolves from a mappable way, to a series of
other things, before disappearing
completely.   But it leaves significant land use patterns on the waterways,
roadways and buildings it once ran near.

I know it's a messy dividing line.  I see it as important context to
current day mapping.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Janko Mihelić]

2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge :

>
> How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large
> structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?
>

I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be rendered. I just said it's not default
layers job to render everything that someone needs for a project. And the
post i replied to said that the bridge should be rendered because he has a
project with the local council.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[John F. Eldredge]

How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large 
structure which has been mapped and which is physically present?


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.




On March 9, 2015 10:16:43 AM Janko Mihelić  wrote:


2015-03-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 ael :

>
> I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
> using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be
> singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes
> are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in
> distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be
> sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first
> introduction.
>
> So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?
>
> ael
>

Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional.
The job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in
their projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped,
and to guide mappers in their choice of tags.

If you decide to use this layer for different purposes you are guaranteed
to have problems.

Janko Mihelić



--
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:18 +, ael wrote:
>
> > The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
> 
> That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. 

Indeed. 

> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
> to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.

I'd personally urge you not to take that step ael. OSM is a much bigger
project than a few people unable to discuss matters using reasonable
words.

I experienced a similar reaction analysing why THE Map does not
distinguish between paved and unpaved roads. A good percentage of the
world's roads are unpaved. 

Please remember that like the mapping that you and I enjoy, building the
rendering engine is unpaid work. They concentrate their efforts on the
aspects they personally consider important, just as we map the things we
consider important. In both cases, it may not be the shortest route to
the perfect map.

>
> I will explain and illustrate the distinction between the data base
> and rendering. But that may be way over the heads of some local
> politicians. Or not.

I'd emphasise that THE Map is just a starting point. The local council
could undertake to use the database to generate what ever map they want
to see. Iff they have the skills and time necessary. Sigh !

Don't go suggesting "a pull request" - who knows what that would be
taken as meaning !

David



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Warin]

On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote:

I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
rendering.

According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been
removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present.



Possible work around?

Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area?

Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge

Try that and see if it works.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

[Warin]

On 10/03/2015 8:02 AM, Malcolm Herring wrote:
The Wiki is very clear (in several languages) as what a survey point 
is, but is there some other meaning that mappers understand this term 
to mean? The reason I ask is that I often come across 
man_made=survey_point tags that have been added to other objects. Not 
infrequently this tag replaces an existing man_made=* tag, even though 
other tags describing the original object remain. This then creates a 
nonsensical set of tags. I have just come across these tags added to 
some buoys in the middle of the River Maas! As is often the case, the 
changeset was un-commented, so I have added a query comment to see if 
I can discover what was in that mappers mind.



 Send the mapper a message - through |
www.openstreetmap.org/user/[user_name]

That way you may learn of what was meant?




|
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Bird hides

[Andy Mabbett]

I'd like us to improve out tagging of bird/ wildlife hides and screens
or blinds):

   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dbird_hide

   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bird_hide
(voting opened in 2009!)

   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dwildlife_hide

From my experiences in the UK, Spain and USA, these can be buildings,
flat screens, multiple screens joined at an angle of 90 degrees or
more, screens with roofs supported by posts, and so on.

It would be adavtagus to tag which side or sides have viewing screens
(in other words, which way the hide faces).

Some are at ground level, some are raised, and some have two or more
viewing levels.

There are pictures at:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_hide

and:

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bird_hides

Suggestions?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Richard Welty]

On 3/9/15 4:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
> The broader point is intact.
>
> When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in
> various places, it is super helpful
> to see the context of the prior railroad grade.  It helps in mapping
> from the air and on the ground.
>
> A given railway grade may (and often does) exist as razed, abandoned,
> disused, and reused (e.g. highway=residential or highway=service,
> leisure=park) along it's length.  So how can we represent the former
> way, and the current use of each bit,
> in a rational way?
>
it's probably worthwhile to consider OpenHistoricalMap as a resource for
recording information about spatial entities that no longer exist in the
modern
world. this relieves us of the argument about representing them in OSM.

i am now in the opening phase of a campaign to describe old auto racing
venues in OHM; in some cases they are related to existing physical entities
(e.g., the first and second Watkins Glen Grand Prix courses used public
roads
of the time, most of which still exist. likewise, many airport courses
have been
used over the years and are no longer; but the airports frequently still
exist.
these things go in OHM because while the physical entities still exist, the
racing usage is long gone.)

the issue of how to relate OHM objects to OSM objects is an open question;
right now i am not attempting to provide links from OHM entities to OSM
entities and instead am depending on a leaflet application to use OSM as a
basemap to provide context.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Survey points

[Malcolm Herring]

The Wiki is very clear (in several languages) as what a survey point is, 
but is there some other meaning that mappers understand this term to 
mean? The reason I ask is that I often come across man_made=survey_point 
tags that have been added to other objects. Not infrequently this tag 
replaces an existing man_made=* tag, even though other tags describing 
the original object remain. This then creates a nonsensical set of tags. 
I have just come across these tags added to some buoys in the middle of 
the River Maas! As is often the case, the changeset was un-commented, so 
I have added a query comment to see if I can discover what was in that 
mappers mind.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

[John Willis]

That's true about referring to a website rather than OSM - but couldn't OSM, 
particularly in larger venues, at least show the rental spaces when searched? 
If properly tagged, then all the different event venues in your area would come 
up, which would be much better than trying to go site by site. 

Even if that info were a bit stale, I think that information could be very 
useful. So the extent, location, and operator's info of the space is important.

Javbw

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> What use can a map reader make of event hall data?
> Personally I would find the existence of a event rental space interesting, 
> but always defer to the official website for any sense of capacity/size/hours.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, SomeoneElse  wrote:

> "railway=abandoned" has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate
> "where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some
> way".  See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned .
>
> And yes, if it's a "highway=track" now, you can of course map it as that
> as well.  If it's not visible (e.g. someone's build a factory on it) it's
> NOT "railway=abandoned".
>

Ah thanks, I stand corrected. railway=razed would be the tag to discuss.

The broader point is intact.

When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in
various places, it is super helpful
to see the context of the prior railroad grade.  It helps in mapping from
the air and on the ground.

A given railway grade may (and often does) exist as razed, abandoned,
disused, and reused (e.g. highway=residential or highway=service,
leisure=park) along it's length.  So how can we represent the former way,
and the current use of each bit,
in a rational way?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[John F. Eldredge]

If the bridges are still present, the map should render them even if the 
rails and railbeds on either side of the bridge have been removed. After 
all, we are supposed to map the ground truth, and if the bridge is still 
present, that is the ground truth.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.




On March 9, 2015 9:35:59 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:


Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27:
> Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
>> I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
>> on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
>> bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
>> to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
>> rendering.
>>
>> According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been
>> removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present.
>>
>> Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways.
>>
>> I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this
>> case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik.

Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27:
> Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data
> which rely on good and exact tagging!
> http://openrailwaymap.org
>
> There is no reason to increase "the reputation of OSM-Carto". If it
> renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the
> data!

+1, please tag what is on the ground,
and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[SomeoneElse]

On 09/03/2015 20:03, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

The core problem is:
*railway=abandoned*
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.


No.

"railway=abandoned" has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate 
"where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in 
some way".  See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned .


And yes, if it's a "highway=track" now, you can of course map it as that 
as well.  If it's not visible (e.g. someone's build a factory on it) 
it's NOT "railway=abandoned".


Cheers,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Bryce Nesbitt]

The core problem is:
*railway=abandoned*
Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground.
What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate
herbicide,
up through a highly visible gravel trackbed with bridges and culverts and
bits of railway artifact scattered about.


So how do we tag the railway history AND what we can see on the ground?

*railway=abandoned  (part of a railway relation)*

*highway=track*

*bridge=yes*

*width=5m*
*access=**unenforced*

And a bit down the old track:
*railway=abandoned **(part of a railway relation)*

*natural=tree_row*


Somehow we have to map what it was (a railway) and what it is now (perhaps
a farm field, subdivision, or secret shortcut through the woods).
Then the default rendering pretty clearly can show "what it is now"*,*
without running rendered lines through current day buildings, parks and
parking lots.


http://www.abandonedrails.com/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

What *use* can a map *reader* make of event hall data?
Personally I would find the existence of a event rental space interesting,
but always defer to the official website for any sense of
capacity/size/hours.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Steve Doerr]

On 09/03/2015 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


That is handled in a separate issue:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320

Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments,
especially the first two.


I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would make this comment: 'Unless 
you are a maintainer on this project, please do not mention or even hint 
at "abandoned railways" since that will lead to your comments being 
deleted and you being blocked from making future comments.'


--
Steve


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, ael  wrote:

> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
> to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.
>

Please ignore these types of comments. While we all generally agree that
tagging for the renderer isn't appropriate, I do it all the time. I love
adding buildings which I think enhances OSM cartography. It is appropriate
to open tickets to get the rendering fixed.

Your comments did remind me that I need to add an abandoned bridge near
home. One spring, when the river is high, the bridge is going to wash away.
It mostly just rust now.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Mateusz Konieczny]

"case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges"

That is handled in a separate issue:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320

Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments,
especially the first two.

"I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this
case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik."

Please, avoid tagging as rendering as method for maintaining reputation of
OSM/default map style. This is not helpful.


2015-03-09 17:27 GMT+01:00 ael :

> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> > +1, please tag what is on the ground,
> > and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
>
> Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support the
> case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges. A pity that
> it seems to have been dismissed without any real explanation.
>
> An ordinary person who hears of Openstreetmap goes straight to the
> Mapnik default front page. They may find the "Layers" and select
> another rendering (none of which seem to show these bridges).
> But they are not going to find all the other OSM based maps without
> digging fairly deeply. It is a pity that there isn't a prominent
> page in the wiki listing all/many of the other maps. Yes, I know it is a
> wiki, so I ought to add it myself...
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Dan S]

2015-03-09 16:18 GMT+00:00 ael :
>> The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
>
> That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very
> carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time.
>[...]
> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
> to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.

On behalf of other people, I'd like to apologise for that comment.
People on this list, and elsewhere, seem to have  using the word
"vandalism" to describe various types of edit that disagree with their
perception of OSM consensus, rather than the true meaning of
"vandalism" which I don't need to spell out here. That's a lazy habit
and very rude to the recipient.

Best wishes
Dan

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[phil]

You should show them RichardF's cycle.travel site as a different way of 
rendering OSM, and it shows old railways.

Phil (trigpoint )

On Mon Mar 9 16:18:39 2015 GMT, ael wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
> > > Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
> > > ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
> > > and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.
> > 
> > Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed tags to values
> > which are wrong. What about people who want to calculate the length of
> > the railway network including disused tracks which have not been removed
> > yet (and therefore are easy to reactivate)?
> 
> That is ludicrous. I have changed a few metres only. The error bars on
> my surveys of several km of abondoned railway will far exceed that.
> 
> > The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.
> 
> That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very
> carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time. I only
> changed a very small section on a couple of bridges to explore the
> rendering and was unaware of this hornets' nest of bickering. And
> consulted this list.  Another mapper who has given no source has added
> 1/2 km or more of track that I am fairly confident no longer exists: I
> intend to try to survey to confirm or refute, but it is on private
> ground.  He also added an entirely ficticious section of railway right
> across what is now a dual carriage way and other developments.  That
> might perhaps be near vandalism, although I suspect that he was a novice
> perhaps looking at an historical route, perhaps without realizing that
> he was modifying the database.
> 
> Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
> to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.
> 
> > Well, if these people do not like OSM because /one/ OSM-based map does
> > not show a couple of bridges, it is not bad if they do not use OSM. OSM
> > is a database and no map! Please explain this if they ask why osm.org
> > does not show bridge X.
> 
> Many are likely to be complete novices, and even drawing that
> distinction at their first brush with the project might put them off.
> If I still give the talk after this reaction, I will pitch as best
> I can to the audience. If they are at the right level, obviously
> I will explain and illustrate the distinction between the data base
> and rendering. But that may be way over the heads of some local
> politicians. Or not.
> 
> ael
> 
> 
> 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[ael]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> +1, please tag what is on the ground,
> and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support the
case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges. A pity that
it seems to have been dismissed without any real explanation.

An ordinary person who hears of Openstreetmap goes straight to the
Mapnik default front page. They may find the "Layers" and select
another rendering (none of which seem to show these bridges).
But they are not going to find all the other OSM based maps without
digging fairly deeply. It is a pity that there isn't a prominent
page in the wiki listing all/many of the other maps. Yes, I know it is a
wiki, so I ought to add it myself...

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[ael]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
> > Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
> > ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
> > and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.
> 
> Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed tags to values
> which are wrong. What about people who want to calculate the length of
> the railway network including disused tracks which have not been removed
> yet (and therefore are easy to reactivate)?

That is ludicrous. I have changed a few metres only. The error bars on
my surveys of several km of abondoned railway will far exceed that.

> The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.

That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very
carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time. I only
changed a very small section on a couple of bridges to explore the
rendering and was unaware of this hornets' nest of bickering. And
consulted this list.  Another mapper who has given no source has added
1/2 km or more of track that I am fairly confident no longer exists: I
intend to try to survey to confirm or refute, but it is on private
ground.  He also added an entirely ficticious section of railway right
across what is now a dual carriage way and other developments.  That
might perhaps be near vandalism, although I suspect that he was a novice
perhaps looking at an historical route, perhaps without realizing that
he was modifying the database.

Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work
to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.

> Well, if these people do not like OSM because /one/ OSM-based map does
> not show a couple of bridges, it is not bad if they do not use OSM. OSM
> is a database and no map! Please explain this if they ask why osm.org
> does not show bridge X.

Many are likely to be complete novices, and even drawing that
distinction at their first brush with the project might put them off.
If I still give the talk after this reaction, I will pitch as best
I can to the audience. If they are at the right level, obviously
I will explain and illustrate the distinction between the data base
and rendering. But that may be way over the heads of some local
politicians. Or not.

ael



> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[phil]

On Mon Mar 9 15:49:01 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse  wrote:
> > To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
> > and it was summarily closed:
> >
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641
> 
> That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a
> duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier
> bug report.
> 
> We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken
> a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges.
> 
Most are not standalone, but part of embankments/cuttings which are significant 
navigational features.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse  wrote:
> To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
> and it was summarily closed:
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641

That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a
duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier
bug report.

We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken
a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges.

-- Matthijs

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 15:29 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx

Try again http://binged.it/1x8Hhki

Phil (trigpoint )
> 
> On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> > On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael  wrote:
> > > I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> > > including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
> > > using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> > > railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be
> > > singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes
> > > are missing.
> > 
> > Do you have an example of how local maps render these bridges?
> > 
> > > So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?
> > 
> > Yes, it was pointed out to you already:
> > 
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320
> > 
> > But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are
> > useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get
> > desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report.
> > 
> > -- Matthijs
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Jolla
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[phil]

An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx

Phil (trigpoint )

On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael  wrote:
> > I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> > including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
> > using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> > railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be
> > singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes
> > are missing.
> 
> Do you have an example of how local maps render these bridges?
> 
> > So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?
> 
> Yes, it was pointed out to you already:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320
> 
> But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are
> useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get
> desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report.
> 
> -- Matthijs
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 March 2015 at 15:15, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The
> job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their
> projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to
> guide mappers in their choice of tags.

That's not necessarily true. According to CARTOGRAPHY.md, the purposes
of the default layer are:

- It's the primary feedback mechanism for mappers to validate their
edits - so detail is useful
- It's a major part of the impression visitors to osm.org receive - so
clear design is useful
- It's an examplar stylesheet for rendering OSM data - so easy
customisation is useful

That said, as the openstreetmap-carto is a one-size-fits all map,
there are often better maps for specific situations.

-- Matthijs

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[SomeoneElse]

On 09/03/2015 15:16, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael  wrote:

So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?

Yes, it was pointed out to you already:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320

But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are
useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get
desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report.


To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this 
issue and it was summarily closed:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641

I can understand the decision not to render abandoned railways, but it's 
a little disingenuous to suggest that the reason that they aren't 
getting rendered is due to the lack of a pull request (although I'm sure 
that there are lots of other features for which pull requests would be 
welcome).


Best Regards,

Andy




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:
> Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
> ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
> and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.

Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed tags to values
which are wrong. What about people who want to calculate the length of
the railway network including disused tracks which have not been removed
yet (and therefore are easy to reactivate)?

The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism.

> Nevertheless, I agree that it is a problem with OSM-Carto, as I
> indicated in the OP.
> 
> I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering 
> using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be
> singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes
> are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in
> distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be
> sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first
> introduction. 

Well, if these people do not like OSM because /one/ OSM-based map does
not show a couple of bridges, it is not bad if they do not use OSM. OSM
is a database and no map! Please explain this if they ask why osm.org
does not show bridge X.

> So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues

btw, what's your nickname?

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael  wrote:
> I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
> using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be
> singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes
> are missing.

Do you have an example of how local maps render these bridges?

> So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?

Yes, it was pointed out to you already:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320

But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are
useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get
desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report.

-- Matthijs

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Janko Mihelić]

2015-03-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 ael :

>
> I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
> including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering
> using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
> railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be
> singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes
> are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in
> distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be
> sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first
> introduction.
>
> So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?
>
> ael
>

Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional.
The job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in
their projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped,
and to guide mappers in their choice of tags.

If you decide to use this layer for different purposes you are guaranteed
to have problems.

Janko Mihelić
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[ael]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:27:17PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi ael,
> 
> Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
> > I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
> > on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render 
> > bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
> > to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
> > rendering.
> 
> Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data
> which rely on good and exact tagging!
> http://openrailwaymap.org
> 
> There is no reason to increase "the reputation of OSM-Carto". If it
> renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the
> data!

Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on
ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey
and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data.

Nevertheless, I agree that it is a problem with OSM-Carto, as I
indicated in the OP.

I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group
including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering 
using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned
railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be
singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes
are missing. I suppose that it might be a useful lessson in
distinguishing the data base from the rendering, but there might be
sceptics present. Also I want to keep it simple at least for the first
introduction. 

So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet?

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[SomeoneElse]

On 09/03/2015 14:22, ael wrote:

I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
rendering.



"Mapnik" the software is just fine; it's our "standard" map that's the 
problem.


This was discussed to death on 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and frankly 
there's nothing more to be said that hasn't already been said there on 
the subject.


However please DO tag what's on the ground.  Just because one online map 
is incapable of rendering large physical features as they appear is not 
a good reason to tag things incorrectly.  Other maps do render abandoned 
railways; if the "standard" map doesn't work for you, don't use it (it 
doesn't for me and I don't).


Cheers,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 09/03/2015, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> +1, please tag what is on the ground,
> and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542

As for the discussion on rendering standalone bridges :
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320

Note that there has been lots of arguing on the railway topic on
github (and elsewhere). Please don't refuel that particular debate,
osm-carto's choices may not match your own, but they are coherent.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 09.03.2015 15:32, fly napisał(a):


Still miss support for man_made=bridge which leads to mapping for the
renderer as user add highway=* + area=yes to the area to get it 
rendered.


The ticket is not closed, but I don't know the final decision or what 
may be obstacles, however there was not so much problems, so I guess 
developer's time may be the key factor here:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/436

--
Mambałaga

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Tom Pfeifer]

Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27:

Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:

I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
rendering.

According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been
removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present.

Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways.

I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this
case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik.


Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27:

Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data
which rely on good and exact tagging!
http://openrailwaymap.org

There is no reason to increase "the reputation of OSM-Carto". If it
renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the
data!


+1, please tag what is on the ground,
and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[fly]

Am 09.03.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Michael Reichert:
> Hi ael,
> 
> Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
>> I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
>> on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render 
>> bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
>> to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
>> rendering.
>>
>> According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been
>> removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present.
>>
>> Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways.
>>
>> I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this
>> case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik.
> 
> Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data
> which rely on good and exact tagging!
> http://openrailwaymap.org
> 
> There is no reason to increase "the reputation of OSM-Carto". If it
> renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the
> data!

+1

Still miss support for man_made=bridge which leads to mapping for the
renderer as user add highway=* + area=yes to the area to get it rendered.

cu fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Michael Reichert]

Hi ael,

Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael:
> I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
> on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render 
> bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
> to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
> rendering.
> 
> According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been
> removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present.
> 
> Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways.
> 
> I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this
> case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik.

Would you please change this back?! There also other maps using OSM data
which rely on good and exact tagging!
http://openrailwaymap.org

There is no reason to increase "the reputation of OSM-Carto". If it
renders bad images, they bad and the stylesheet has to be fixed, not the
data!

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[ael]

I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused
on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render 
bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance
to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard
rendering.

According to the wiki railway=abandoned applies when the rails have been
removed, and disused should be used when the rails are still present.

Not suprisingly this has been raised before, as for instance at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways.

I don't like tagging for the renderer and normally avoid it, but in this
case it seems to be necessary to maintain the reputation of OSM/mapnik.

A quick search of the wiki didn't find where to report bugs on the 
standard mapnik osm style, but I can't imagine that this has not been
raised before.

Should I just switch to "disused" even when no rails are present?

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-09 6:55 GMT+01:00 johnw :

> current draft definition:
>
> A new landuse =* value
> for civil government buildings & complexes where citizens or services for
> citizens are managed. This includes legislative and executive centers, as
> well as administrative offices for government programs and mixed-use
> governmental complexes, such as most "city hall" complexes.
>


I believe that city halls might be some sort of exception, as they often
have legislation space (municipal assembly) in common with the seat of the
mayor (executive), while on higher levels this is rarely the case (e.g.
white house and congress). In the example of the city of Berlin (which is
somehow an exception as well, as they are a "Land" and not just a city) you
also have these two functions in the same building:
http://www.berlin.de/orte/sehenswuerdigkeiten/rotes-rathaus/index.en.php?lang=en
BUT: they are not open to the citizen (save for touristic visits), the
services to the citizen are offered by lower level city halls (on lower
admin level for "districts" (Bezirk)).


>
>
> On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
> I'd see "administration" as part of the executive power, although every
> bigger entity, be it private or public, legislative, executive or judicial,
> will have some administration part.
>
>
> If I knew nothing about the structure of government, just the buildings on
> the ground, I would notice that the “city hall” for many towns and small
> cities often (but not always) have combined complexes for both the assembly
> and mayor, and often offices for programs (national insurance, pension,
> taxes)
>
> but the courthouse and the punishment system is often never in that same
> complex - in my experince. Is that different in places you have seen?
>


the Tower of London comes to my mind, it is was a Royal palace as well as a
prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_London
Not the most recent example, but there might be more.



>
> I am referring to administration in the general sense - people administer
> a program to do something - issue car licensing or building permits,
> collecting money, etc, or are involved in the creation or decision making
> process of those programs (leaders, legislative bodies, school boards,
> water boards, etc)
>


it's this point, where we do not meet, to me administering stuff to do
something is different from legislation (setting up the rules according to
which administration works). Someone issuing a car license cannot decide
upon the rules, they are set up by a different entity which only sets up
rules.



> but the primary purpose of a standard courthouse has nothing to do with
> the creation or management of government programs. They are there for
> dispute resolution - between private parties, between the police and a
> citizen, between the government ant it’s people - but ultimately it is
> about dispute resolution - which could be civil or criminal.
>


in other words, to interpret the rules (based on the primary rules
(constitution), all the rules, past decisions, etc.) and applicate them to
the actual case.



>
> if - like most police stations, fire stations, and hospitals -  they sat
> on separate landuses, we wouldn’t be having this discussion - as a single
> landuse for executive, legislative, and judicial would not only be
> appropriate, but practical to implement as well.
>


maybe we don't need a landuse at all, we could just map what is there (e.g.
a courthouse, a prison, a city hall, a parking, etc.). If we want to map a
mixup of different such functions into a bigger entity, we could do that
also without a landuse value, e.g. amenity=civic_centre (BE Spelling).



>
> But it is impossible to implement a separate legislative and executive
> landuse because after mapping Washington DC, and a few capitol buildings,
> the first muli-use complex would make it fall apart - and the thousands of
> mixed-use city hall complexes in the US alone would make having separate
> landuses not practical, IMO.
>


I see.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

[Janko Mihelić]

2015-03-09 11:57 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> this looks very complicated to render, because you have to synchronize to
> flights of steps so that they become one, I guess this will be much easier
> if you mapped 2 steps instead of this very complex object (doesn't look so
> complex in your sketch, but I believe it actually is, you'd have to be very
> precise with the lower ways in order to avoid seams).
>

I don't think it's complicated. Just divide the left way to 10 segments,
and the right one to 7 segments. Connect the corresponding dots with lines.
That's it.

Of course, this can not be done with a dumb renderer. A dumb renderer can
just fill the area with steps in the approximately right direction. An even
dumber renderer can just render the two ways, like they have been doing
before.

Mapping this as two steps is not entirely right. What if that staircase had
a name?

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

[Martin Vonwald]

2015-03-09 12:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> 2015-03-09 11:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>
>> The description of the key service also ...
>>
>
I meant the key "office" and not "service", sorry for that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-09 11:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :

> To me "shop" means a place where I can buy things. If I'm looking for a
> service, I would go to an "office".  The description of the key service
> also starts with "A place predominantly selling services.". Sounds good to
> me. How about office=fuel_delivery?
>



+1, whatever key you like ;-)
Btw.: "fuel" is a quite generic term, maybe we have to add a subtag for the
kind of fuel, or be more specific in the primary tag, e.g. delivering coal
and oil for heating in the winter is quite common in certain areas, but
typically they won't offer both (completely different requirements in
storage and transport).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-09 0:45 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :

> Here's an example:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/a4C7fyR.png
>


this looks very complicated to render, because you have to synchronize to
flights of steps so that they become one, I guess this will be much easier
if you mapped 2 steps instead of this very complex object (doesn't look so
complex in your sketch, but I believe it actually is, you'd have to be very
precise with the lower ways in order to avoid seams).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-06 12:15 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :

> Martin, could we get an example of what you're proposing at Pioneer
> Courthouse Square ?  Portland's central transit
> hub and main square seems like it would be a suitably complex use scenario
> that would make all other examples simpler.
>


sorry for replying late, yes, this looks like a complex case and nice to
test the proposal. I'm trying to set up a mockup (couldn't find a nice
drawing of what is there, so it might take some time to draw a simplified
version for a mockup.)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

[Martin Vonwald]

2015-03-09 10:45 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> what about shop=fuel_delivery?
>

To me "shop" means a place where I can buy things. If I'm looking for a
service, I would go to an "office".  The description of the key service
also starts with "A place predominantly selling services.". Sounds good to
me. How about office=fuel_delivery?

br,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 09.03.2015 um 01:13 schrieb André Pirard :
> 
> It's not amenity=fuel (not a gas station).


+1


> It's not shop=fuel (people don't come with jerry-cans).


what about shop=fuel_delivery?
There are also shops that deliver gas in bottles, but the ones I know are doing 
this as an extra service (I.e. delivery=yes attribute).
I wouldn't use shop=fuel delivery=only for your shop because this will easily 
get misinterpreted 

Cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] route=foot

[johnw]

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> On Mar 8, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>  US Scouts might hyperbolize intentionally to "Rattan Death March" for 
>> extreme distances over rugged terrain. 
> 
> Off Topic: I was under the impression that it would be called a "Bataan Death 
> March" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March 
> 
Its a “Rattan Death March” when you have to carry your friends crappy 
wicker/rattan furniture up flights of stairs when you help them move. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattan 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

[johnw]

Maybe it would be possible to map the event areas (if known) with area/point 
tags like event_space=1 and a name or ref, and then basic info (surface, 
capacity, covered,) and then, um, relate them to the main landuse/amenity 
object like the garden or event hall ( i dont' know relations). If it is a 
standard one room kind of place, then I guess it’s possible to just put 
event_space=yes or whatever like an amenity tag on the location point or area 
generally, or on the space itself inside the larger landuse. 

A convention center could have multiple halls / rooms, and an event could use 
1, several, or all of them at once - but having them mapped for the basic 
understanding of what is possible is the best idea - it doesn’t really matter 
if an event uses half or all of it, as the invitations and pricing guides will 
discuss them based on rooms or locations, so it’s best to have those mapped out 
and represented individually - as that is how people will try to find and 
orient themselves, or understand what they are renting. 

Javbw


> On Mar 9, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 9/03/2015 5:08 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Bryce Nesbitt > > wrote
>> But the whole thing is a bit problematic.
>> It's hard to draw a line between places that dedicated for events,
>> and places that may do a few events per year.
>> And it's hard to set a proper area for places that may rent the building 
>> separately from the (sometimes extensive)
>> grounds.
>> 
>> There's also not a lot of tagging history behind tagging an area within an 
>> area
>> (e.g. tagging the event rental area, within the larger hotel).
> 
> Some places have extensive grounds .. and large buildings.. they can have 
> several events on at a time .. some take place in both the grounds and a hall 
> .. others simply take one or the other . These usually specalise in events 
> only. Cutzon Hall Sydney is an example. 
> 
> The Botanic Gardens in Sydney off the hire of  areas .. and/or buildings .. 
> for evens .. like weddings. The open areas are usually open to the public, 
> some of the buildings are only open on special occasions to the public. 
> 
> Lots and lots of variations. 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

[Jan van Bekkum]

As the comments period is over and no comments have been received lately I
would like to move the proposal shop=storage

to stage voting.

I have done some final editing to cover the received feedback.

Instructions for voting:

   - Log in to the wiki - top right corner of the page -scroll up
   - Then scroll down to voting and click on 'edit'
   - Copy and paste for * yes -   {{vote|yes}} , for  no
-   {{vote|no}} 

Thanks for your support!

Regards,

Jan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

[Warin]

On 9/03/2015 5:08 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Bryce Nesbitt > wrote


But the whole thing is a bit problematic.
It's hard to draw a line between places that dedicated for events,
and places that may do a few events per year.
And it's hard to set a proper area for places that may rent the
building separately from the (sometimes extensive)
grounds.


There's also not a lot of tagging history behind tagging an area 
within an area

(e.g. tagging the event rental area, within the larger hotel).


Some places have extensive grounds .. and large buildings.. they can 
have several events on at a time .. some take place in both the grounds 
and a hall .. others simply take one or the other . These usually 
specalise in events only. Cutzon Hall Sydney is an example.


The Botanic Gardens in Sydney off the hire of  areas .. and/or buildings 
.. for evens .. like weddings. The open areas are usually open to the 
public, some of the buildings are only open on special occasions to the 
public.


Lots and lots of variations.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

[Warin]

On 9/03/2015 5:45 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:



I'm not sure how steps vanish if you have the same number of them.



Both upper and lower ways slope at the same rate in the same direction  ..
 So same number at sides .. but in order for the treads to remain level 
the steps must vanish on the upper and lower ways.


>
>
> Yes.. works for the example given .. but needs more work .. ummm ?
>

Give me an example and I'll try to model it with my method. Maybe it 
has a hole I'm not aware of.




I'll wait to speak to someone who may know the professional methods. Not 
too urgent.






___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

[johnw]

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> 
> In any case, that is one example were police and court house buildings are in 
> the same complex as other civic buildings, so it can happen.
> 
> For what it is worth, there is no landuse polygon around the Civic Center but 
> if landuse=civic gains any support it seems appropriate to me to add such a 
> polygon.



I just finished updating the page  ( 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Civic_admin 
 ) without 
currently including judicial, but based on your example, it looks like I need 
to include it. 

These kinds of mixed facilities are why I wanted a plain landuse=civic 
initially, but many people thought the definition was too broad, so I’m going 
piece by piece with the new landuses (admin/service/safety) - but it looks like 
there is a lot of overlap everywhere. 


Thanks for the feedback!

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging