Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2018, at 09:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all.


because in golfing you don’t refer to grass by referring explicitly to 
different heights, you use specific types of vegetation and “treatment” and 
obstacles/features, like fairway, green, rough, bunker. It makes no sense (to 
me) to describe the features of a golf course in an abstract way if it is 
immediate and self explanatory to use duck tagging and precise terms. IMHO 
applying the terms of the domain you want to describe makes it both, easier for 
data consumers to understand what is intended, and for mappers to know which 
tags to apply (as long as the mappers are familiar with the domain).

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 15/07/18 17:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 14. Jul 2018, at 09:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all.


because in golfing you don’t refer to grass by referring explicitly to 
different heights, you use specific types of vegetation and “treatment” and 
obstacles/features, like fairway, green, rough, bunker. It makes no sense (to 
me) to describe the features of a golf course in an abstract way if it is 
immediate and self explanatory to use duck tagging and precise terms. IMHO 
applying the terms of the domain you want to describe makes it both, easier for 
data consumers to understand what is intended, and for mappers to know which 
tags to apply (as long as the mappers are familiar with the domain).



Devils advocate hat firmly on.

But what is intended? Not the height of the grass .. but the 'smoothness and 
regularity' of the playing surface?

I use http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/ as an example again.
That golf course has no grown grass. They use sand and oil for the greens. They 
use artificial grass on the tees.
The difference is the finish on the surfaces .. not the size of gains of sand 
nor size of the rocks nor the height of the grass...

I have just finished tagging that golf course .. fairways have surface=sand, 
colour=white; greens are surface=sand, colour=black.
Humm I don't remember what I have tagged tees as? Should be colour=green, 
surface=artificial_grass and they should be square.
 .
I don't have the knowledge to tag the roughs, bunkers and some of the tees 
there so it is just a rough start.


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[osm.tagging]

> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018 18:41
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page
> 
> Devils advocate hat firmly on.
> 
> But what is intended? Not the height of the grass .. but the
> 'smoothness and regularity' of the playing surface?
> 
> I use http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/ as an example again.
> That golf course has no grown grass. They use sand and oil for the
> greens. They use artificial grass on the tees.
> The difference is the finish on the surfaces .. not the size of
> gains of sand nor size of the rocks nor the height of the grass...
> 
> I have just finished tagging that golf course .. fairways have
> surface=sand, colour=white; greens are surface=sand, colour=black.
> Humm I don't remember what I have tagged tees as? Should be
> colour=green, surface=artificial_grass and they should be square.
>   .
> I don't have the knowledge to tag the roughs, bunkers and some of
> the tees there so it is just a rough start.

All of which is pretty much totally irrelevant.

What you need is 
golf=green
golf=tee
golf=fairway
golf=bunker
golf=rough
...
for the appropriate areas.





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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared zones?

[Tobias Zwick]

Tagging these zones explicitly with the rules the law dictates for these
zones is certainly a solution, but a less ideal one than merely tagging
the type of zone because this would require every surveyor to know
exactly what rules apply to tag it correctly. A surveyor just sees this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/France_road_sign_B52.svg/262px-France_road_sign_B52.svg.png

I see the following pros if we'd specifically tag shared zones as such,
and not (only) the rules derived from that:

1. Surveyors don't need to know what rules exactly are derived from that
   sign, so it is easier and more consistently mapped

2. better verifiability: we tag the existence of the sign above, not
   just rules that are derived from that sign

3. slightly better future-compatibilty: since the existance of the sign
   instead of rules derived from that sign is mapped, there is no
   problem should the rules change

4. slightly less complex evaluation by routers: router software just
   needs to look at one tag (like with highway=living_street) to know
   that the road is a very low priority road instead of evaluating the
   designated tags.

How about this?
---

We tag shared zones (where that sign is visible) as
highway=living_street, but tag the speed limit explicitly to what can be
read on the sign. As said, in all countries that implemented shared
zones so far, the actual speed limit is explicitly given on the sign.

Reasons:
1. Shared zones share pretty much the same traffic rules as
   living streets, and they are implementations of the same concept:
   shared space zones[1].

2. At least in Belgium, Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland,
   Georgia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Ukraine (source: [2]),
   the implicit speed limit for "real" living streets is actually 20
   km/h (the common speed limit for shared zones). So, the living
   streets in these countries are already more like shared zones.
   Actually, there are more countries with the concept of living streets
   that set a default 10-20 km/h limit than those that set a "walking
   speed" limit. This explains why "Begegnungszone"/shared zone only
   exist in a few countries - in the others, living streets are
   basically already that.

3. No changes required for router software to understand shared zones as
   a very low priority road :-D

4. And of course the 4 pros mentioned above.

Tobias

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Default_speed_limits

On 15/07/2018 00:22, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> While I agree they match the description of highway=living_street
> sometimes these also match highway=service (service=alley) so it can be
> hard to decide which tag to use...
> 
> Either way I tag them with maxspeed=10 (lower speed limit),
> foot=designated, bicycle=designated, motor_vehicle=designated since
> that's what the signage indicates.
> 
> On Sun., 15 Jul. 2018, 12:36 am Tobias Zwick,  > wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Should ... shared zones (AU, NZ), also known as...
> - Begegnungszone (CH, AT)[1]
> - Zone de rencontre (BE, FR)[2]
> - Zona de coexistência (PT)
> ... be tagged specifically in OpenStreetMap?
> 
> And if yes, with what?
> 
> Shared zones are similar to living streets, in that they are both
> implementations of the concept of shared space[3], only that shared
> zones are something I would call "living street light". What these
> implementations I mentioned above all have in common are:
> - pedestrians have right of way or at least equal rights to other
>   road users
> - max speed is *not* walking speed, but signposted (usually 10-20 km/h)
> 
> Greetings
> Tobias
> 
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begegnungszone
> 
> [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_rencontre
> 
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 15/07/18 18:56, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018 18:41
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

Devils advocate hat firmly on.

But what is intended? Not the height of the grass .. but the
'smoothness and regularity' of the playing surface?

I use http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/ as an example again.
That golf course has no grown grass. They use sand and oil for the
greens. They use artificial grass on the tees.
The difference is the finish on the surfaces .. not the size of
gains of sand nor size of the rocks nor the height of the grass...

I have just finished tagging that golf course .. fairways have
surface=sand, colour=white; greens are surface=sand, colour=black.
Humm I don't remember what I have tagged tees as? Should be
colour=green, surface=artificial_grass and they should be square.
   .
I don't have the knowledge to tag the roughs, bunkers and some of
the tees there so it is just a rough start.

All of which is pretty much totally irrelevant.

What you need is
golf=green
golf=tee
golf=fairway
golf=bunker
golf=rough
...
for the appropriate areas.



I apologise for the simplification.

For the 'greens' I have closed ways with the tags

golf=green

colour=black

surface=sand

source=bing

for the fairways I have some simple closed ways and some multipolygon relations 
where there is an inner or are inners with the tags

golf=fairway

colour=white

surface=sand

source=bing

and so on.. The intention was to demonstrate that not all golf courses have 
grass, have 'greens' that have grass or are green in colour, etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary or tertiary ways?

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 07/12/2018 08:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Trunk, yes.  Primary and lower, if it has exits intersections, are you
> sure it's not a trunk? 

Allen Parkway in Houston is like this, it's most definitely not a trunk
(anymore) but there is a section that has grade-separated exits. Fannin
Street in Houston crossing Holcombe Boulevard also comes to mind as a
non-trunk with a grade-separated exit.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared zones?

[Peter Elderson]

+1
In Nederland, "walking speed" has been redefined as 15 Kmph.
Shared zones are not explicitly definied. Living_street has pedestrian
priority, street_exits (constructed like driveway exits) too. Many places
are implicitly shared zones, such as parking lots, market squares outside
market hours, pedestrian areas where traffic is alowed as guests, paved
village greens when there is no event goining on, etcetera.

Sometimes on accident-prone locations where traffic regulation is
impossible, all pavements are unified, kerbs and signs are removed, and
usually the number of accidents suddenly approaches zero.

2018-07-15 12:11 GMT+02:00 Tobias Zwick :

> Tagging these zones explicitly with the rules the law dictates for these
> zones is certainly a solution, but a less ideal one than merely tagging
> the type of zone because this would require every surveyor to know
> exactly what rules apply to tag it correctly. A surveyor just sees this:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/
> France_road_sign_B52.svg/262px-France_road_sign_B52.svg.png
>
> I see the following pros if we'd specifically tag shared zones as such,
> and not (only) the rules derived from that:
>
> 1. Surveyors don't need to know what rules exactly are derived from that
>sign, so it is easier and more consistently mapped
>
> 2. better verifiability: we tag the existence of the sign above, not
>just rules that are derived from that sign
>
> 3. slightly better future-compatibilty: since the existance of the sign
>instead of rules derived from that sign is mapped, there is no
>problem should the rules change
>
> 4. slightly less complex evaluation by routers: router software just
>needs to look at one tag (like with highway=living_street) to know
>that the road is a very low priority road instead of evaluating the
>designated tags.
>
> How about this?
> ---
>
> We tag shared zones (where that sign is visible) as
> highway=living_street, but tag the speed limit explicitly to what can be
> read on the sign. As said, in all countries that implemented shared
> zones so far, the actual speed limit is explicitly given on the sign.
>
> Reasons:
> 1. Shared zones share pretty much the same traffic rules as
>living streets, and they are implementations of the same concept:
>shared space zones[1].
>
> 2. At least in Belgium, Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland,
>Georgia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Ukraine (source: [2]),
>the implicit speed limit for "real" living streets is actually 20
>km/h (the common speed limit for shared zones). So, the living
>streets in these countries are already more like shared zones.
>Actually, there are more countries with the concept of living streets
>that set a default 10-20 km/h limit than those that set a "walking
>speed" limit. This explains why "Begegnungszone"/shared zone only
>exist in a few countries - in the others, living streets are
>basically already that.
>
> 3. No changes required for router software to understand shared zones as
>a very low priority road :-D
>
> 4. And of course the 4 pros mentioned above.
>
> Tobias
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Default_speed_limits
>
> On 15/07/2018 00:22, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > While I agree they match the description of highway=living_street
> > sometimes these also match highway=service (service=alley) so it can be
> > hard to decide which tag to use...
> >
> > Either way I tag them with maxspeed=10 (lower speed limit),
> > foot=designated, bicycle=designated, motor_vehicle=designated since
> > that's what the signage indicates.
> >
> > On Sun., 15 Jul. 2018, 12:36 am Tobias Zwick,  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Should ... shared zones (AU, NZ), also known as...
> > - Begegnungszone (CH, AT)[1]
> > - Zone de rencontre (BE, FR)[2]
> > - Zona de coexistência (PT)
> > ... be tagged specifically in OpenStreetMap?
> >
> > And if yes, with what?
> >
> > Shared zones are similar to living streets, in that they are both
> > implementations of the concept of shared space[3], only that shared
> > zones are something I would call "living street light". What these
> > implementations I mentioned above all have in common are:
> > - pedestrians have right of way or at least equal rights to other
> >   road users
> > - max speed is *not* walking speed, but signposted (usually 10-20
> km/h)
> >
> > Greetings
> > Tobias
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begegnungszone
> > 
> > [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_rencontre
> > 
> > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
> > 
> >
> > __

Re: [Tagging] landcover=asphalt ; landuse=highway

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 15:38, Leo Gaspard  wrote:
> These tags has already been put forth in the landcover proposal [1], but
> I was just pointed to [2] where a user complained (rightfully) that the
> shape of the road on OSM mismatched the shape of the actual road.

> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1387860

I think that the mapping of the streets at that location still doesn't
reflect reality well: I'd expect there to be separated carriageways,
which isn't the case. This also has a negative effect on routing, e.g.
see:



This is how I would map the situation:



Regards, Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Watching this with interest as, just the other day, while on holidays, I
was looking at a golf club that is apparently built within the boundaries
of a designated State Forest, intended for logging purposes, so it
*is* landuse=forest
as far as OSM is concerned, but it is also leisure=golf_course!

Makes as interesting one, as in this case, mapping correctly shows the
wrong rendered result, as it shows that this area is covered by trees, when
it is in fact a golf club, with normal tees, fairways, greens etc.

I have no idea as to the legal ownership of the ground - it is quite
possible that the ground is still Govt owned, designated as State Forest,
but leased to the Golf Club on an on-going basis, but with the possibility
that, one day, the Govt could take it back & plant pine trees across the
area.(Which may sound far-fetched, but is perfectly possible, although
unlikely)

But, going back to golf courses, how do you number the fairways? "1" or
"1st"?; & marked on the tee / fairway / green / all 3 / don't?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Watching this with interest as, just the other day, while on holidays, I
> was looking at a golf club that is apparently built within the boundaries
> of a designated State Forest, intended for logging purposes, so it *is* 
> landuse=forest
> as far as OSM is concerned, but it is also leisure=golf_course!
>
> Makes as interesting one, as in this case, mapping correctly shows the
> wrong rendered result, as it shows that this area is covered by trees, when
> it is in fact a golf club, with normal tees, fairways, greens etc.
>

Use a multipolygon relation.

If you're using iD, select the forest, scroll the "edit feature" pane down
to all relations, click on the +, then click on new
relation.  Choose multipolygon.  It should let you set the role of the
forest to outer.  Note all the tags on the forest
(landuse=forest and whatever else) and add those tags to the multipolyon
then delete them from the forest itself (which is
now treated as a closed line, don't worry about that, it's all going to be
fine).  Now select the golf course, down to relations,
add it to whatever you called the forest multipolygon and set role to
inner.  That's all from memory as I was taking a break
from a complicated edit so can't run through all the steps to check.

You can't do it this way unless the golf course is inside the forest.  It
can have a partial common border but it must
be inside.  Two areas with a partial overlap won't work.

If you figure out how to do it from my incomplete explanation, you'll now
see the golf course rendered properly.  I know
this stuff does what you want because I've recently added lakes with
islands and forests with quarries and ponds.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 16/07/18 08:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Watching this with interest as, just the other day, while on holidays, 
I was looking at a golf club that is apparently built within the 
boundaries of a designated State Forest, intended for logging 
purposes, so it /is/ landuse=forest as far as OSM is concerned, but it 
is also leisure=golf_course!


Makes as interesting one, as in this case, mapping correctly shows the 
wrong rendered result, as it shows that this area is covered by trees, 
when it is in fact a golf club, with normal tees, fairways, greens etc.


I have no idea as to the legal ownership of the ground - it is quite 
possible that the ground is still Govt owned, designated as State 
Forest, but leased to the Golf Club on an on-going basis, but with the 
possibility that, one day, the Govt could take it back & plant pine 
trees across the area.(Which may sound far-fetched, but is perfectly 
possible, although unlikely)


Yes. there is a mountain bike club using forestry land that I came 
across too .. mumm .. I'd change the golf cub area to golf club as that 
is what is on the ground .. but add a tag ownership=forestry commission 
? I have left the MTB thing alone .. nothing very visible.


But, going back to golf courses, how do you number the fairways? "1" 
or "1st"?; & marked on the tee / fairway / green / all 3 / don't?


Looks to me like it is marked on the 'hole' .. 'golf=hole' is for the 
way between tee off to green pin ...
as suggested on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course .

That wiki page looks to have the best descriptions to me.


I think some tees and greens are used for multiple different holes so 
use the hole for the name etc is best in that situation.



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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 01:43:55PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I have just come across a new mapper trying to map a golf course.
> Fine, but they can do with some guidance.
> Looking around for such guidance I came across this wiki page,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_2013

And it contradicts Best mapping practices by encouraging name tag abuse.

I have seen some Golf courses and all of them have heavy name tag abuse
for descriptions. 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


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