Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[Warin]

A remote mapper cannot determine if something will have water in it if 
the imagery shows no water.
Nor could they determine if a water way (that has water in it in the 
imagery) is seasonal or intermittent.


If a mapper cannot see it or has no knowledge of it .. don't map it!

I have seen remote mappers tag things as vehicle highways ... when they 
are foot paths and have never seen a vehicle.

Don't map what you cannot see or don't know.

On 20/05/18 12:07, Vao Matua wrote:
For remote mappers seasonal can be ambiguous, the only thing that is 
known is that a channel or lake didn't have water when the image was 
taken.
In the tropics the notion of summer doesn't make sense, it's a foreign 
concept.

intermittent=yes is a fine tag

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 19/05/18 13:25, Tod Fitch wrote:

On May 18, 2018, at 7:33 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:

Hi,

I seek comments and thoughts on

-

Seasonal:

The seasonal tag in well established. I don't think there
is much confusion with it.


---

Intermittent:

The intermittent tag continues to be confused with seasonal.

Possibly this is because some want to use it to indicate
that a follow is both seasonal and intermittent?


-

Ephemeral:

There is also ephemeral being used with stream=ephemeral.
This cannot be used with other water features e.g. lakes.

I think the tag ephemeral=yes could be used, other ideas
for tagging are flow=ephemeral, water=ephemeral ...


---

Combinations with seasonal?

Think I have raised this before but not come to any firm
conclusion myself.

I think that tagging

seasonal=summer

intermittent= yes


leads to confusion. Is the summer flow intermittent? Or is
ther regular summer flow with intermittent flow at other
times of year?

It may be better to tag

seasonal:intermittent=summer


or

seasonal=summer

seasonal:intermittent=winter;autumn;spring

In the semi-arid areas I’ve lived in there are “waterways”
that, if they carry water, only have water in them during the
rainy season. But, they may not carry water throughout the
rainy season. Or even carry water at all every rainy season.
So I can see some merit to indicating the seasonality of
intermittent water flow.

If I recall correctly, there was some discussion a while back
about using ephemeral as either a key or as a value to the
intermittent key to cover the case where even during a rainy
season it would be rare to encounter water and if you did the
water was likely to be present for only a few hours. But
looking at the wiki and taginfo I don’t see it being used as a
value for intermittent. There are only 82 instances of it
being used as a key all with the value “yes". And I don’t
recall the final “bike shedded” result of the mail list
discussion. Apparently it did not take hold. I personally
thing “ephemeral” should be a accepted value for the
intermittent tag but apparently I am alone in that opinion.

In any case, your “seasonal:intermittent=summer” tag could
also be confusing. Does that mean that the only time you are
likely to encounter water is in summer but it is only
intermittent then? Or does it mean that there is likely to be
water in it during fall, winter and spring but it becomes
intermittent in summer? Basically has the same issue as the
current tagging you are noting as being confusing.

In reading the current wiki, I think the tagging should be a
logical and operation. If there is a seasonal tag, it
indicates the season water may be present. Then if there is a
intermittent tag it indicates that even during the season
water is present it is intermittent.

Ok.

I think I have some 3 reasonable things to move forward with.

Intermittent clarification:

Clarify the meaning of intermittent on the OSM wiki! At the moment
it says "used to indicate that a body of water does not
permanently contain water."
That is too easily confused with seasonal! I think it should say
"used to indicate that a body of water only has water
irregularly." Where should this be 'discussed'?

Intermittent - add values:
Add seasonal values to intermittent e.g. intermittent=summer to
indicate that water might be present irregularly, 

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[Vao Matua]

For remote mappers seasonal can be ambiguous, the only thing that is known
is that a channel or lake didn't have water when the image was taken.
In the tropics the notion of summer doesn't make sense, it's a foreign
concept.
intermittent=yes is a fine tag

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/05/18 13:25, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> On May 18, 2018, at 7:33 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I seek comments and thoughts on
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Seasonal:
>>>
>>> The seasonal tag in well established. I don't think there is much
>>> confusion with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Intermittent:
>>>
>>> The intermittent tag continues to be confused with seasonal.
>>>
>>> Possibly this is because some want to use it to indicate that a follow
>>> is both seasonal and intermittent?
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Ephemeral:
>>>
>>> There is also ephemeral being used with stream=ephemeral. This cannot be
>>> used with other water features e.g. lakes.
>>>
>>> I think the tag ephemeral=yes could be used, other ideas for tagging are
>>> flow=ephemeral, water=ephemeral ...
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Combinations with seasonal?
>>>
>>> Think I have raised this before but not come to any firm conclusion
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> I think that tagging
>>>
>>> seasonal=summer
>>>
>>> intermittent= yes
>>>
>>>
>>> leads to confusion. Is the summer flow intermittent? Or is ther regular
>>> summer flow with intermittent flow at other times of year?
>>>
>>> It may be better to tag
>>>
>>> seasonal:intermittent=summer
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> seasonal=summer
>>>
>>> seasonal:intermittent=winter;autumn;spring
>>>
>>> In the semi-arid areas I’ve lived in there are “waterways” that, if they
>> carry water, only have water in them during the rainy season. But, they may
>> not carry water throughout the rainy season. Or even carry water at all
>> every rainy season. So I can see some merit to indicating the seasonality
>> of intermittent water flow.
>>
>> If I recall correctly, there was some discussion a while back about using
>> ephemeral as either a key or as a value to the intermittent key to cover
>> the case where even during a rainy season it would be rare to encounter
>> water and if you did the water was likely to be present for only a few
>> hours. But looking at the wiki and taginfo I don’t see it being used as a
>> value for intermittent. There are only 82 instances of it being used as a
>> key all with the value “yes". And I don’t recall the final “bike shedded”
>> result of the mail list discussion. Apparently it did not take hold. I
>> personally thing “ephemeral” should be a accepted value for the
>> intermittent tag but apparently I am alone in that opinion.
>>
>> In any case, your “seasonal:intermittent=summer” tag could also be
>> confusing. Does that mean that the only time you are likely to encounter
>> water is in summer but it is only intermittent then? Or does it mean that
>> there is likely to be water in it during fall, winter and spring but it
>> becomes intermittent in summer? Basically has the same issue as the current
>> tagging you are noting as being confusing.
>>
>> In reading the current wiki, I think the tagging should be a logical and
>> operation. If there is a seasonal tag, it indicates the season water may be
>> present. Then if there is a intermittent tag it indicates that even during
>> the season water is present it is intermittent.
>>
>> Ok.
>
> I think I have some 3 reasonable things to move forward with.
>
> Intermittent clarification:
>
> Clarify the meaning of intermittent on the OSM wiki! At the moment it says
> "used to indicate that a body of water does not permanently contain water."
> That is too easily confused with seasonal! I think it should say "used to
> indicate that a body of water only has water irregularly." Where should
> this be 'discussed'?
>
> Intermittent - add values:
> Add seasonal values to intermittent e.g. intermittent=summer to indicate
> that water might be present irregularly, but only during summer. RFC etc?
>
> Add ephemeral:
> Add the ephemeral tag with the same extended values as intermittent above.
> RFC etc ?
>
>
> ___
> 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] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[Warin]

On 19/05/18 13:25, Tod Fitch wrote:


On May 18, 2018, at 7:33 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I seek comments and thoughts on

-

Seasonal:

The seasonal tag in well established. I don't think there is much confusion 
with it.


---

Intermittent:

The intermittent tag continues to be confused with seasonal.

Possibly this is because some want to use it to indicate that a follow is both 
seasonal and intermittent?


-

Ephemeral:

There is also ephemeral being used with stream=ephemeral. This cannot be used 
with other water features e.g. lakes.

I think the tag ephemeral=yes could be used, other ideas for tagging are 
flow=ephemeral, water=ephemeral ...


---

Combinations with seasonal?

Think I have raised this before but not come to any firm conclusion myself.

I think that tagging

seasonal=summer

intermittent= yes


leads to confusion. Is the summer flow intermittent? Or is ther regular summer 
flow with intermittent flow at other times of year?

It may be better to tag

seasonal:intermittent=summer


or

seasonal=summer

seasonal:intermittent=winter;autumn;spring


In the semi-arid areas I’ve lived in there are “waterways” that, if they carry 
water, only have water in them during the rainy season. But, they may not carry 
water throughout the rainy season. Or even carry water at all every rainy 
season. So I can see some merit to indicating the seasonality of intermittent 
water flow.

If I recall correctly, there was some discussion a while back about using ephemeral 
as either a key or as a value to the intermittent key to cover the case where even 
during a rainy season it would be rare to encounter water and if you did the water 
was likely to be present for only a few hours. But looking at the wiki and taginfo I 
don’t see it being used as a value for intermittent. There are only 82 instances of 
it being used as a key all with the value “yes". And I don’t recall the final 
“bike shedded” result of the mail list discussion. Apparently it did not take hold. 
I personally thing “ephemeral” should be a accepted value for the intermittent tag 
but apparently I am alone in that opinion.

In any case, your “seasonal:intermittent=summer” tag could also be confusing. 
Does that mean that the only time you are likely to encounter water is in 
summer but it is only intermittent then? Or does it mean that there is likely 
to be water in it during fall, winter and spring but it becomes intermittent in 
summer? Basically has the same issue as the current tagging you are noting as 
being confusing.

In reading the current wiki, I think the tagging should be a logical and 
operation. If there is a seasonal tag, it indicates the season water may be 
present. Then if there is a intermittent tag it indicates that even during the 
season water is present it is intermittent.


Ok.

I think I have some 3 reasonable things to move forward with.

Intermittent clarification:

Clarify the meaning of intermittent on the OSM wiki! At the moment it says "used to 
indicate that a body of water does not permanently contain water."
That is too easily confused with seasonal! I think it should say "used to indicate 
that a body of water only has water irregularly." Where should this be 'discussed'?

Intermittent - add values:
Add seasonal values to intermittent e.g. intermittent=summer to indicate that 
water might be present irregularly, but only during summer. RFC etc?

Add ephemeral:
Add the ephemeral tag with the same extended values as intermittent above. RFC 
etc ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

obviously  Quack, quack

2018-05-19 22:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area
>> +
>> relation type=route route=walking_bus
>> yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :)
>>
>
> So if it walks like a bus, looks like a bus and quacks like a bus then
> it's a duck?
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Walkingbus_stop

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc 
wrote:

>
> node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area
> +
> relation type=route route=walking_bus
> yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :)
>

So if it walks like a bus, looks like a bus and quacks like a bus then it's
a duck?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[marc marc]

Le 19. 05. 18 à 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo  wrote:
>>
>> OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as 
>> such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.
> 
> 
> route=walking_bus?
> that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who 
> knows the concept.

that is the first propal you seems to previously disagree !
node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area
+
relation type=route route=walking_bus
yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

yes, that sounds fine.

2018-05-19 21:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo  wrote:
> >
> > OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit,
> as such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.
>
>
> route=walking_bus?
> that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who
> knows the concept.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo  wrote:
> 
> OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as 
> such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.


route=walking_bus?
that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who 
knows the concept.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 19.05.2018 16:56, marc marc wrote:

if an operator decided to replace a diesel engine with a bicycle
crankset for each passenger, would that stop being a PT?


Yes - the operator would have to serve beer, and we'd have to tag them
tourism=attraction + highway=obstacle.

https://luxeadventuretraveler.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Jdombs-Travels-Beer-Bike-Berlin-1.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as
such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.

Polyglot

2018-05-19 18:44 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 19. May 2018, at 16:56, marc marc  wrote:
> >
> > access limited to a certain audience ? some are, others are not.
>
>
> If it isn’t transportation for the general public I would not map it as
> public transport.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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 - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 16:56, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> access limited to a certain audience ? some are, others are not.


If it isn’t transportation for the general public I would not map it as public 
transport.


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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 16:44,  
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> But I can see cases where emergency and disabled makes sense as access values 
> instead.


I can also see this, but it is a different meaning, and I’m not even sure if 
using the exact same term would be helpful for people to understand the 
meaning. Look at agricultural, it can mean both, a vehicle class when used as 
key or a “use mode” when used as value. If we start introducing more use modes 
with the same names as vehicle classes, access tagging will seem even less easy 
to understand.


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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 16:44,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Now suppose I have a gate (intended for foot traffic). The gate has a sign 
> "Emergency Personnel Only".


access=private 


> 
> emergency=yes is obviously wrong. That would imply that an ambulance can 
> drive through there.
> 
> foot=emergency would make much more sense instead.


why? “emergency personnel“ is about people working in the emergency context, 
but it doesn’t imply there has to be an emergency, they could just as well have 
a break for coffee

foot=emergency could mean pedestrians having an emergency can pass. It is not 
selfexplanatory.

„emergency=yes“ also is probably used for different things: 
a) for „emergency forces in action“
b) for vehicles used by emergency forces, like police cars, fire fighters, 
ambulances.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[marc marc]

Le 19. 05. 18 à 15:54, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 19. May 2018, at 00:19, marc marc  wrote:
>>
>> but the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver
>> with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform
>> the same apply to the route where a relation type=route route=foot
>> and all other PTv2 tag look like good imho.
> 
> everybody can use a bus, but pedibus is only for pupils.

You're both reviewing criteria that aren't relevant to differentiating 
between buses and walking buses.

fee ? some PTs are free and some not -> use fee key for that.

access limited to a certain audience ? some are, others are not.
some "diesel buses" are restricted to pupils, some not (as Jo said for 
Belgium).
some "walking buses" are restricted to pupils, some not (the one I known 
is not restricted : pupils, older brother, parent, grandparent, other 
person, everybody can join, the pedibus and "diesel powered bus" have 
the same criteria.
If it's not the case in your area and you take care of that, put an 
access tag or min_age or max_height or whatever on the relation.

the only diff between a diesel bus and a pedibus is the fact it's 
passive (sit down and wait until you reach your destination) or active 
(use human propulsion)

if an operator decided to replace a diesel engine with a bicycle 
crankset for each passenger, would that stop being a PT?
and how would that change the public_transport=platform ? in no way!
if that happens, the right schema to differentiate them would no doubt 
be to creake a key like propulsion:source=diesel|human
and certainly not saying that the public_transport=plateform is no 
longer a public_transport=plateform due the power source change of the 
relation

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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[osm.tagging]

> > With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they
> central question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no,
> private, destination, delivery, customers, ...) or transport modes
> (like foot, bicycle, motor_vehicle, ...)
> 
> this is already documented on the access page

Yes, as I already pointed out myself in the part of my message that you didn't 
quote.

I was questioning if the decisions that had been made was the correct one (or 
at least if it should be extended).

e.g. "emergency" is documented as a transport mode:

emergency=* (category: emergency motor vehicles; e.g., ambulance, fire truck, 
police car)


Now suppose I have a gate (intended for foot traffic). The gate has a sign 
"Emergency Personnel Only".

emergency=yes is obviously wrong. That would imply that an ambulance can drive 
through there.

foot=emergency would make much more sense instead.

That would make it an access value, similar to:

delivery: Only when delivering to the element.
customers: Only for customers of the element. If access is not open to any 
person willing to pay, consider using private instead. Membership clubs are 
generally tagged as private.
agricultural: Only for agricultural traffic.
forestry: Only for forestry traffic.

That is, emergency would in this case be a property of the person wanting 
access, instead of the specific transport mode a person is currently using.

Similar issue with disabled.

Disabled, according to the wiki is in the category:

access/vehicle/motor_vehicle/By use/disabled

Suppose I want to tag e.g. a priority entrance for disabled people as part of a 
ticket barrier at a railway station.

disabled=yes would imply that it's for use by disabled people in motor vehicles?

That sounds wrong.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying emergency and disabled should be removed as 
transport modes.

But I can see cases where emergency and disabled makes sense as access values 
instead.

My previous post was meant to invite discussion on this, not a "we are done 
with that already, move on".

Cheers,
Thorsten






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

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 18. May 2018, at 09:03,  
>  wrote:
> 
> With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they central 
> question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no, private, 
> destination, delivery, customers, ...) or transport modes (like foot, 
> bicycle, motor_vehicle, ...)



this is already documented on the access page 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 00:19, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> but the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver
> with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform
> the same apply to the route where a relation type=route route=foot
> and all other PTv2 tag look like good imho.


They are not exactly the same people, everybody can use a bus, but pedibus is 
only for pupils.

You don’t need to be public transport in order to be a route, a route relation 
should still be created 


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

Re: [Tagging] access with permit (gone double OT)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

19. May 2018 06:17 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


> On the one hand, I have cases like the (still unsolved) "public land, permit 
> required to enter", which I wish to distinguish and render differently on my 
> maps from both "public land, open without prior arrangement", and "private 
> land". Whenever I've brought that up on this list, I've been shouted down by 
> people who insist that those three categories should be only two.




for public access: access=yes 

for private access: access=private 


for private access, access with permit: access=private, access_with_permit=yes 





Maybe there is a better name (I spend no time on thinking about it ), 


but any detail may be added by inventing a new tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[osm.tagging]

Sounds like candidates for:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/floodplain

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_prone

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=basin

 

Depending if natural or man made.

 

The floodplain proposal definitely needs more work, I don’t think it belongs in 
the natural namespace (as it conflicts with tagging the same area as 
natural=scrub or something like that).

 

And the sub properties should probably use the by now well established : syntax 
instead of _

 

floodplain sort of implies intermittent, and I would say in many cases this 
might be a better classification than putting down a (seldom existing) lake 
area with intermittent=yes.

 

 

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 16:38
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

 

Following with interest, thanks.

 

How do you then tag areas that only flood / run / hold water after (very) heavy 
rain?

 

Are they intermittent?




Thanks

 

Graeme

 

On 19 May 2018 at 15:20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
 > wrote:

On 19/05/18 13:06, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com  >
Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 12:33
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

Think I have raised this before but not come to any firm conclusion
myself.

I think that tagging

seasonal=summer

intermittent= yes


leads to confusion. Is the summer flow intermittent? Or is ther
regular
summer flow with intermittent flow at other times of year?

It may be better to tag

seasonal:intermittent=summer


or

seasonal=summer

seasonal:intermittent=winter;autumn;spring

I'm not sure if the two tags need to or should be mixed like that.

It might be better to just allow time frames (seasons as well as month ranges) 
in addition to yes/no values for both seasonal and intermittent.

So:

seasonal=summer
intermittent=summer

means it's only flowing in the summer (from seasonal), and then only 
intermittent.

or

seasonal=summer
intermittent=autumn-spring or autumn;winter;spring or march-november (maybe 
mar-nov ?)


I like that. Month ranges I have not thought of .. seasons can vary from year 
to year so I like that vagueness.


means it's always flowing in the summer, and intermittent the rest of the year.

The concept of seasons becomes less meaningful the closer you get to the 
equator, so allowing month based time frames would make sense. Maybe also the 
concept of tropical "wet" or "dry" season. Perhaps "monsoon" season as well in 
areas where that is a prominent weather pattern.


"Monsoon" does not say if it is the wet part or dry part of the monsoon. "Wet" 
and "dry are seasonal values in use and can be used for monsoonal areas.



___
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 - amenity=lounger

[Tomasz Wójcik]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lounger

An object for people to lie down.

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

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Following with interest, thanks.

How do you then tag areas that only flood / run / hold water after (very)
heavy rain?

Are they intermittent?

Thanks

Graeme

On 19 May 2018 at 15:20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/05/18 13:06, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
>>> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 12:33
>>> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>>>
>>> Think I have raised this before but not come to any firm conclusion
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> I think that tagging
>>>
>>> seasonal=summer
>>>
>>> intermittent= yes
>>>
>>>
>>> leads to confusion. Is the summer flow intermittent? Or is ther
>>> regular
>>> summer flow with intermittent flow at other times of year?
>>>
>>> It may be better to tag
>>>
>>> seasonal:intermittent=summer
>>>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> seasonal=summer
>>>
>>> seasonal:intermittent=winter;autumn;spring
>>>
>> I'm not sure if the two tags need to or should be mixed like that.
>>
>> It might be better to just allow time frames (seasons as well as month
>> ranges) in addition to yes/no values for both seasonal and intermittent.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> seasonal=summer
>> intermittent=summer
>>
>> means it's only flowing in the summer (from seasonal), and then only
>> intermittent.
>>
>> or
>>
>> seasonal=summer
>> intermittent=autumn-spring or autumn;winter;spring or march-november
>> (maybe mar-nov ?)
>>
>
> I like that. Month ranges I have not thought of .. seasons can vary from
> year to year so I like that vagueness.
>
>
>> means it's always flowing in the summer, and intermittent the rest of the
>> year.
>>
>> The concept of seasons becomes less meaningful the closer you get to the
>> equator, so allowing month based time frames would make sense. Maybe also
>> the concept of tropical "wet" or "dry" season. Perhaps "monsoon" season as
>> well in areas where that is a prominent weather pattern.
>>
>
> "Monsoon" does not say if it is the wet part or dry part of the monsoon.
> "Wet" and "dry are seasonal values in use and can be used for monsoonal
> areas.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

[Yves]

As a possible alternative, Imposm creates a relation_member tables that make it 
fast and efficient to do whatever you want with routes (and even sites!) with a 
trivial JOIN: you know which elements belongs to which relation and which 
relation contains which element.
It's a bit like the planet_osm_rels with an index on members ids.
Something similar could be implemented in Osm2pgsql, more versatile than only 
focusing on routes.
From the doc:
https://imposm.org/docs/imposm3/latest/relations.html
relation_member¶

The relation_member table type inserts each member of the relation as a 
separate row. The relation_member has access to the role and type value of each 
member. You can also import tags from the relation and from the member node, 
way or relation.

Yves 

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