Re: [Tagging] Imagery variations/misalignments in iD - which to use?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:26 AM John Willis  wrote:

> The issue I am facing is that, even after some adjustment of the angle of
> bing imagery, there seems to be some distortion. things don’t line up well
> between the Bing and ortho maps in some places, and are much closer in
> others.  a *lot* of the mapping aligns with the bing imagery, but there are
> areas of obvious 2-3m distortion in places (the road is wavy), but other
> areas of newer/clearer imagry align with the ortho imagry.
>

I also encounter this "wavy" roads in imagery. I think they are the result
of improper orthorectification by the imagery provider. Satellite imagery
is often off-nadir (not photographed straight down) so providers correct
for differences in terrain elevation by rectifying them based on available
elevation models. Unfortunately, many elevation models like SRTM cannot
distinguish between buildings and hills and so roads are often distorted
around tall buildings in many parts of the world.

I don't have any good solution for this aside from trying to get access to
better imagery so I just try to map things as best as I can. It may also
help to avoid micromapping unless you are sure that the imagery is really
good.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Michael Patrick]

> On 1/11/19 2:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes
> > locations where a trail just crosses a road.
>

There are many trail heads to systems which are reached by boat,
See http://www.bostonharborislands.org/hike-the-harbor. In remote areas
of Alaska, Maine, etc., you can reach some by only rail, by requesting a
'flag stop'. I recall some Scandinavian country had a shuttle flights to
remote areas to pickup and drop off cross country skiers from central
points. There are trails along abandoned railroad right of ways which
cross roads using the trestles, without any direct access to the roads,
similarly, some follow streams which pass hundreds of feet under
the highway bridges above. At least in the U.S.A. the most that can be
said of a trailhead is that it has some form of transportation access and
link to the trail system, not even that they are the start of finish.I've
been
to some that had no more than tree blazes marking them or a highway
mile marker referencing them.

I know it's a wild thought, but why don't you look at the data models
that already exist, like the British Ordnance Survey, the U.S. FGDC,
or the E.U. Inspire standard.

For the term 'trailhead', it is kept as very simple concept, "where a
pedestrian network affords a transition to other transport networks".
Everything else that might be in proximity to the trailhead, the parking,
visitor centers, kiosks, etc. are bundled together, and, handled as if
there was no 'trailhead' there at all.

>  then invent a tag for TOP and use it,

+1, I'll help. I suspect it  already exists, or is underdevelopment,  since
the Netherlands is at the forefront of Inspire adoption.

A trailhead is a singular thing, that point at the interface between
networks,
it isn't collection of things. Those other things might be in proximity or
coincident with the trailhead, but they don't contribute to the definition
of trail head. For that matter, it really might not be considered even a
thin itself, because it really is a only 'reference' to other non-trail
networks.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Imagery variations/misalignments in iD - which to use?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I just go with the best available image for the area & follow that! Around
here, that's almost always Bing as it's "usually" the clearest in our area
(although you have to zoom in to 19 or 20 to get the best view :-()

Further out, it & the others are all so fuzzy that it's almost impossible
to pick fine detail :-(

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:26, John Willis  wrote:

> Another quick question:
>
> Mapping in Japan.
>
>
> in iD, we have some imagery to choose from:
>
> -  Bing imagery (from very very good to meh),
> - a Japanese government GIS render (which is okay, a patchwork of
> different vector illustrations) [Japan GSI standard Map]
> - a Japanese “ortho” view, imagery with almost no off-angle tilt. [Japan
> GSI ortho imagery]
>
> The issue I am facing is that, even after some adjustment of the angle of
> bing imagery, there seems to be some distortion. things don’t line up well
> between the Bing and ortho maps in some places, and are much closer in
> others.  a *lot* of the mapping aligns with the bing imagery, but there are
> areas of obvious 2-3m distortion in places (the road is wavy), but other
> areas of newer/clearer imagry align with the ortho imagry.
>
> It is a difference of only a few meters, but with the insane complexity of
> even farming roads, a clash of a few meters between different mappers looks
> bad.
>
> What do you guys do in such situations?
> ___
> 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] Road blocks?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:17, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Graphhhopper does not update the database instantaneously.
>

 On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:24, Anton Klim  wrote:

> Yep, looks like it might be a router data issue rather than a router
> issue.
> Maybe try OsmAnd Live if you have an android device, or find an
> alternative osm router that updates faster
>

OK thanks - seeing that OSRM seemingly works straight away, I thought they
may both have?

Regardless of any blocks, it still doesn't alter the rather strange
directions they show for the route though?

We'll see if anybody else has any thoughts :-)

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Imagery variations/misalignments in iD - which to use?

[John Willis]

Another quick question:

Mapping in Japan. 


in iD, we have some imagery to choose from: 

-  Bing imagery (from very very good to meh),
- a Japanese government GIS render (which is okay, a patchwork of different 
vector illustrations) [Japan GSI standard Map]
- a Japanese “ortho” view, imagery with almost no off-angle tilt. [Japan GSI 
ortho imagery]

The issue I am facing is that, even after some adjustment of the angle of bing 
imagery, there seems to be some distortion. things don’t line up well between 
the Bing and ortho maps in some places, and are much closer in others.  a *lot* 
of the mapping aligns with the bing imagery, but there are areas of obvious 
2-3m distortion in places (the road is wavy), but other areas of newer/clearer 
imagry align with the ortho imagry. 

It is a difference of only a few meters, but with the insane complexity of even 
farming roads, a clash of a few meters between different mappers looks bad. 

What do you guys do in such situations?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road blocks?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Graphhhopper does not update the database instantaneously. I believe you
will need to wait some time before the routing matches the database: days,
not hours.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:09 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 at 09:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Guess it might be a case of suck it & see!
>>
>
> So, after a couple of weeks of experimenting & playing with various
> blocking options, then checking them with OSRM & GraphHopper (which
> incidentally, brings up some pretty strange results - I'm even tempted to
> ignore it's results altogether?) by attempting to route through the
> roadworks area, I can report back.
>
> If anybody would like to experiment themselves, the spot I was using is
> here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.07477/153.43936, with the
> various blocks being positioned between house number 77 (Mountain View
> Avenue) at the western corner Ernie Tebb Park, & the unmarked crossing /
> painted island, between the Park & the lake.
>
> I was then attempting to route from "12, Honeyeater Drive, Miami, Gold
> Coast, Queensland, 4220, Australia" to "20, Nobby Parade, Miami, Gold
> Coast, Queensland, 4220, Australia", which is a very simple, quite direct
> route.
>
> Unfortunately, when I say that GraphHopper was giving strange results,
> especially for foot & bicycle, it was doing this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-28.07561%2C153.43761%3B-28.07433%2C153.44100
> .
> If this can't be seen, it has foot traffic walking North up Honeyeater
> Drive, East down Mountain View Avenue along the road, *not* the adjacent
> footpath, going the wrong way round the roundabout, continuing down &
> turning South into Babbler Court, then immediately coming back West along
> the Mountain View Avenue footpath till just before the roundabout, where it
> crosses Mountain View Avenue at the footway=crossing + crossing=unmarked,
> follows the round the corner into Nobby Parade, then crosses at another
> crossing, before continuing North along the footpath to the destination.
>
> Bicycle routing is identical, except that it goes the correct way around
> the roundabout, before getting onto the footpath!
>
> So FYI, the results of my testing were:
>
> 1. single barrier=yes (on the road - the actual marked highway=tertiary);
> access=no: didn't render; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 2. single barrier=block (on the road); access=no: rendered as dot only;
> doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 3. row of barrier=block across both lanes; access=no; rendered as row of
> dots; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 4. barrier=bollard (one only on road); access=no: rendered as single dot
> only; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 5. row of barrier=bollard across both lanes; access=no; rendered as row of
> dots; vehicles are blocked in OSRM, but GraphHopper still allows bike, foot
> & vehicle access
>
> 6. single barrier=jersey_barrier (on road); access=no: rendered as dot
> only; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 7. row of barrier= jersey_barrier  across both lanes; access=no; rendered
> as row of dots; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 8. single barrier=gate (on road); access=no: rendered as dot only; doesn't
> stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 7. barrier=fence (across full width of road); access=no: rendered on both
> sides of the road, but not across the road itself; vehicles are blocked in
> OSRM, but GraphHopper still allows bike, foot & vehicle access
>
> 8. barrier=gate in barrier=fence in middle of roadway; access=no on both;
> gate didn't render, fence still only visible on both sides of the road, but
> not across the road itself;  vehicles are blocked in OSRM, but GraphHopper
> still allows bike, foot & vehicle access
>
> 9. barrier=ditch (across full width of road); access=no; didn't render;
> doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access
>
> 10. Least favourable option by far :-(
> Split the road & cut a small (~5m) section out; shows as two road endings
> actually touching; vehicles are blocked in OSRM, but GraphHopper still
> allows bike, foot & vehicle access
>
> Increase gap to ~20m; gap shown in road; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or
> foot access in either router, after a small gap did block OSRM?
>
> Increase road gap to ~50m by cutting it at corner of Honeyeater Drive, so
> whole section of road has disappeared; everything is stopped from going
> that way, including foot & bike, even though there's a marked footpath
> along the side of the road?
>
> Unless I've been doing something wrong with the way I've been placing the
> various blocks, this has got me totally confused?
>
> Why do we have the various blocking options if they don't actually stop
> you driving through them?
>
> Both routers show foot traffic walking along the length of the road, not
> the adjacent footpath - why?
>
> Anybody have any ideas, or should it all be working OK, & it's just a
> 

Re: [Tagging] Road blocks?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 at 09:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Guess it might be a case of suck it & see!
>

So, after a couple of weeks of experimenting & playing with various
blocking options, then checking them with OSRM & GraphHopper (which
incidentally, brings up some pretty strange results - I'm even tempted to
ignore it's results altogether?) by attempting to route through the
roadworks area, I can report back.

If anybody would like to experiment themselves, the spot I was using is
here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-28.07477/153.43936, with the
various blocks being positioned between house number 77 (Mountain View
Avenue) at the western corner Ernie Tebb Park, & the unmarked crossing /
painted island, between the Park & the lake.

I was then attempting to route from "12, Honeyeater Drive, Miami, Gold
Coast, Queensland, 4220, Australia" to "20, Nobby Parade, Miami, Gold
Coast, Queensland, 4220, Australia", which is a very simple, quite direct
route.

Unfortunately, when I say that GraphHopper was giving strange results,
especially for foot & bicycle, it was doing this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-28.07561%2C153.43761%3B-28.07433%2C153.44100
.
If this can't be seen, it has foot traffic walking North up Honeyeater
Drive, East down Mountain View Avenue along the road, *not* the adjacent
footpath, going the wrong way round the roundabout, continuing down &
turning South into Babbler Court, then immediately coming back West along
the Mountain View Avenue footpath till just before the roundabout, where it
crosses Mountain View Avenue at the footway=crossing + crossing=unmarked,
follows the round the corner into Nobby Parade, then crosses at another
crossing, before continuing North along the footpath to the destination.

Bicycle routing is identical, except that it goes the correct way around
the roundabout, before getting onto the footpath!

So FYI, the results of my testing were:

1. single barrier=yes (on the road - the actual marked highway=tertiary);
access=no: didn't render; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access

2. single barrier=block (on the road); access=no: rendered as dot only;
doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access

3. row of barrier=block across both lanes; access=no; rendered as row of
dots; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access

4. barrier=bollard (one only on road); access=no: rendered as single dot
only; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access

5. row of barrier=bollard across both lanes; access=no; rendered as row of
dots; vehicles are blocked in OSRM, but GraphHopper still allows bike, foot
& vehicle access

6. single barrier=jersey_barrier (on road); access=no: rendered as dot
only; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access

7. row of barrier= jersey_barrier  across both lanes; access=no; rendered
as row of dots; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access

8. single barrier=gate (on road); access=no: rendered as dot only; doesn't
stop vehicle, bike or foot access

7. barrier=fence (across full width of road); access=no: rendered on both
sides of the road, but not across the road itself; vehicles are blocked in
OSRM, but GraphHopper still allows bike, foot & vehicle access

8. barrier=gate in barrier=fence in middle of roadway; access=no on both;
gate didn't render, fence still only visible on both sides of the road, but
not across the road itself;  vehicles are blocked in OSRM, but GraphHopper
still allows bike, foot & vehicle access

9. barrier=ditch (across full width of road); access=no; didn't render;
doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot access

10. Least favourable option by far :-(
Split the road & cut a small (~5m) section out; shows as two road endings
actually touching; vehicles are blocked in OSRM, but GraphHopper still
allows bike, foot & vehicle access

Increase gap to ~20m; gap shown in road; doesn't stop vehicle, bike or foot
access in either router, after a small gap did block OSRM?

Increase road gap to ~50m by cutting it at corner of Honeyeater Drive, so
whole section of road has disappeared; everything is stopped from going
that way, including foot & bike, even though there's a marked footpath
along the side of the road?

Unless I've been doing something wrong with the way I've been placing the
various blocks, this has got me totally confused?

Why do we have the various blocking options if they don't actually stop you
driving through them?

Both routers show foot traffic walking along the length of the road, not
the adjacent footpath - why?

Anybody have any ideas, or should it all be working OK, & it's just a
peculiarity of OSRM / GraphHopper that's been throwing me out?

Looking forward to any insights! :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Yay, new howto map for diabilities created in wiki

[Richard]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:36:16PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Hi Richard
> The word handicap in this context is very outdated. It is likely to be seen 
> as condescending. 
> 
> I would suggest changing to disability.

ok, didn't like the name myself .. created yeat another redirect for now and 
will try
to rename it later.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Yay, new howto map for diabilities created in wiki

[Philip Barnes]

Hi Richard
The word handicap in this context is very outdated. It is likely to be seen as 
condescending. 

I would suggest changing to disability.

Cheers 
Phil (trigpoint) 

On 11 January 2019 22:18:01 GMT, Richard  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>collected the information that I found here:
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Handicap
>
>Please add and fix descriptions, add redirects and links
>
>Richard
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Philip Barnes]

On 11 January 2019 22:19:33 GMT, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:
>
>Aren't mills usually fed from *"The Old Mill Stream"* :-)
>
They are usually called a mill race.

Phil (trigpoint) 
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 07:09, ael  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:03:29AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> > Most of what I’d call a drain around here would be large underground
> pipes designed to carry storm water. Empty most of the time except perhaps
> for a trickle of water from various urban/suburban watering overflow. Used
> most of the time by raccoons, possums and rats as away to navigate through
> or shelter in an area without having to worry about being attacked by
> neighborhood dogs, though the larger ones could be attractive for
> adventuresome teenage boys to explore.
>
> Same in UK: I forgot to mention them. The pipes serving domestic houses
> and draining water from roads are all "drains", and by extension also
> for the entrance grills in roads and the like. That includes sewers as
> well. But I guess few of them would be mapped in OSM unless particularly
> large or significant. Back to the point: it would be unnatural to tag
> them as canals! Some might overlap with culverts?
>

Yep.

Stormwater drainage pipes take water from the house out to the gutter,
where it runs down to the drain & eventually to a creek / lake / sea.

Canals are big things that can take boats, not little gutters for water.

If you're feeding water to a field, it's runs via an irrigation "channel".

Aren't mills usually fed from *"The Old Mill Stream"* :-)

& most fountains I know are either in the middle of a lake / pond, or fed
by underground pipes.

So should we add gutter & channel to the list of features?

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Yay, new howto map for diabilities created in wiki

[Richard]

Hi,

collected the information that I found here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Handicap

Please add and fix descriptions, add redirects and links

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 9:03 PM François Lacombe
 wrote:
>

> Then we'll obtain waterway=canal for artificial waterways whatever their 
> usage and waterway=river, stream and ditch for natural or not-lined 
> watercourses.

The wiki page for ditch [1] explicitly states that it is an artificial waterway:

"Use waterway=ditch for simple narrow artificial waterways"


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dditch


regards

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Richard]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 09:01:02AM +1100, Warin wrote:

> >access:disabled=yes - to indicate no-fee for disabled.
> To me that just says disabled have access, nothing about the fee.
> 
> fee:disabled=no might be better???
>  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:fee#New_values

indeed, that looks like a good solution and I have just documented it 
somewhere:)

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Warin]

On 12/01/19 08:28, Xavier wrote:

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:41:13PM +0100, Richard wrote:

looked at the possibilities, one problem: many parking places are
fee=yes for normal users and fee=no for handicapped users.
How can this be mapped?


If you look into the proposal page from the parking space page on the 
wiki:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space
->
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking

It is suggested to use access:disabled=* as a more detailed tag.

So it would seem that one could do:

fee=yes - to cover everyone

and

access:disabled=yes - to indicate no-fee for disabled.

To me that just says disabled have access, nothing about the fee.

fee:disabled=no might be better???
 See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:fee#New_values



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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Xavier]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:41:13PM +0100, Richard wrote:

looked at the possibilities, one problem: many parking places are
fee=yes for normal users and fee=no for handicapped users.
How can this be mapped?


If you look into the proposal page from the parking space page on the 
wiki:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space
->
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking

It is suggested to use access:disabled=* as a more detailed tag.

So it would seem that one could do:

fee=yes - to cover everyone

and

access:disabled=yes - to indicate no-fee for disabled.

might be one way to go.


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[François Lacombe]

Some of them can also be designed to be pressurised while canals are all
open flow waterways.
Then waterway=pressurised applies for pipes or tunnels where water flows
with no air.

I doubt a lot about mandatory navigability of canals.
What about waterways intended to feed mills or fountains ?

François

Le ven. 11 janv. 2019 à 22:09, ael  a écrit :

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:03:29AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> > Most of what I’d call a drain around here would be large underground
> pipes designed to carry storm water. Empty most of the time except perhaps
> for a trickle of water from various urban/suburban watering overflow. Used
> most of the time by raccoons, possums and rats as away to navigate through
> or shelter in an area without having to worry about being attacked by
> neighborhood dogs, though the larger ones could be attractive for
> adventuresome teenage boys to explore.
>
> Same in UK: I forgot to mention them. The pipes serving domestic houses
> and draining water from roads are all "drains", and by extension also
> for the entrance grills in roads and the like. That includes sewers as
> well. But I guess few of them would be mapped in OSM unless particularly
> large or significant. Back to the point: it would be unnatural to tag
> them as canals! Some might overlap with culverts?
>
> 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] Drain vs ditch

[ael]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:03:29AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Most of what I’d call a drain around here would be large underground pipes 
> designed to carry storm water. Empty most of the time except perhaps for a 
> trickle of water from various urban/suburban watering overflow. Used most of 
> the time by raccoons, possums and rats as away to navigate through or shelter 
> in an area without having to worry about being attacked by neighborhood dogs, 
> though the larger ones could be attractive for adventuresome teenage boys to 
> explore.

Same in UK: I forgot to mention them. The pipes serving domestic houses
and draining water from roads are all "drains", and by extension also
for the entrance grills in roads and the like. That includes sewers as
well. But I guess few of them would be mapped in OSM unless particularly
large or significant. Back to the point: it would be unnatural to tag
them as canals! Some might overlap with culverts?

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[ael]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:01:47PM +0100, François Lacombe wrote:
> 
> Currently, both canal and drain refer to structure and usage also.
> Canal is designed for useful water while drain is intended for waste water.
> usage=* comes to give more information of what canal is intended for.
> 
> Regarding ditch, it regards both useful and waste water.
> 
> If we choose to be consistent in waterway=* values, waterway=drain should
> be abandonned in favor of canal + appropriate usage=* values.
> Then we'll obtain waterway=canal for artificial waterways whatever their
> usage and waterway=river, stream and ditch for natural or not-lined
> watercourses.

In normal UK usage, a canal is (or was) navigable: that is the primary
purpose. A drain would normally be substantially smaller, and
non-navigable. No doubt there are exceptions probably in the Norfolk
Broads. But normally drains and canals are quite distinct, so it would
be unnatural in British English to remove drain.  Yes, I do realise that
the word canal is derived from channel.  That sort of usage still
applies in dentistry, as in a root-canal procedure.  But I digress from
waterways :-)

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Richard]

looked at the possibilities, one problem: many parking places are
fee=yes for normal users and fee=no for handicapped users.
How can this be mapped?

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[François Lacombe]

During the RFC of waterways for power generation proposal several
discussion raised because of some waterways values. Drain and ditches were
ones of them.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies

Currently, both canal and drain refer to structure and usage also.
Canal is designed for useful water while drain is intended for waste water.
usage=* comes to give more information of what canal is intended for.

Regarding ditch, it regards both useful and waste water.

If we choose to be consistent in waterway=* values, waterway=drain should
be abandonned in favor of canal + appropriate usage=* values.
Then we'll obtain waterway=canal for artificial waterways whatever their
usage and waterway=river, stream and ditch for natural or not-lined
watercourses.

It's long time changes, see the table here :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values

All the best

François

Le ven. 11 janv. 2019 à 20:05, Tod Fitch  a écrit :

> Most of what I’d call a drain around here would be large underground pipes
> designed to carry storm water. Empty most of the time except perhaps for a
> trickle of water from various urban/suburban watering overflow. Used most
> of the time by raccoons, possums and rats as away to navigate through or
> shelter in an area without having to worry about being attacked by
> neighborhood dogs, though the larger ones could be attractive for
> adventuresome teenage boys to explore.
>
> I’d call the open air, usually concrete lined, versions “storm channels”
> though that might be a local colloquial. Many/most of those follow
> reasonably close to the alignment of the original natural waterways and
> often carry the same name as the original (e.g. “Santa Ana River”, “Los
> Angele River”, etc.). Again “river” would be a historic term as they are
> often dry except during or immediately after a storm.
>
> Cheers!
>
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Eugene Podshivalov 
> wrote:
>
> Tod, what would be definition of "drain"?
>
> Eugene
>
> пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 21:10, Tod Fitch :
>
>>
>> > On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:36 AM, ael  wrote:
>> >
>> > As a native speaker, I do not recognise "canal" as appropriate for
>> > irrigation. That is not to say that some canals may also be used
>> > partly for irrigation.
>> >
>> > But the phrase "irrigation ditch" is common and understood.  Bear in
>> > mind that the UK is mainly a fairly wet place, so the need for
>> > substantial irrigation is not high except in some special cases.  The
>> > unqualified word "ditch" would normally be understood as an artificial
>> > unlined and usually small watercourse. But also, in certain contexts,
>> > for a historic trench acting as a defense or fence, not necessarily
>> > containing water.
>> >
>> > That seems to accord with a the sub tag irrigation=yes on ditches -
>> > and maybe on other waterways if that is one of the uses/functions.
>> >
>> > ael
>> >
>>
>> +1
>>
>> In the desert where I was raised the cotton fields were surrounded with
>> “irrigation ditches”, or “ditches” for short. The fields were watered from
>> the ditches by either syphon hoses or sluice gates.
>>
>> Later, when working on road projects, I found that the low areas on the
>> sides of roads (often used as “side borrow” areas during construction of
>> the roadway) were formally called “drainage ditches” or just “ditches” for
>> short.
>>
>> So to me a ditch is simply a channel dug to move water.
>>
>> But I am an American and our terms diverge somewhat from UK usage. So I
>> looked it up in my older paper version of the OED to find the first two
>> definition are “1. An excavation narrow in proportion to its length; the
>> trench or fosse of a fortification, etc.”. “2. Such a hollow dug out to
>> receive or conduct water, esp. to carry off the surface drainage of a road
>> or field, etc.”
>>
>> Based on the second, I can see the reason why some would conflate
>> “drainage ditch” with simply “ditch”. But I don’t see from this where even
>> in UK usage a ditch has to be for drainage. It is simply a long narrow
>> excavation and, in the waterway sense, dug to conduct water from one place
>> to another.
>>
>>
>> Cheers!
>> tf
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Tod Fitch]

Most of what I’d call a drain around here would be large underground pipes 
designed to carry storm water. Empty most of the time except perhaps for a 
trickle of water from various urban/suburban watering overflow. Used most of 
the time by raccoons, possums and rats as away to navigate through or shelter 
in an area without having to worry about being attacked by neighborhood dogs, 
though the larger ones could be attractive for adventuresome teenage boys to 
explore.

I’d call the open air, usually concrete lined, versions “storm channels” though 
that might be a local colloquial. Many/most of those follow reasonably close to 
the alignment of the original natural waterways and often carry the same name 
as the original (e.g. “Santa Ana River”, “Los Angele River”, etc.). Again 
“river” would be a historic term as they are often dry except during or 
immediately after a storm.

Cheers!

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
> 
> Tod, what would be definition of "drain"?
> 
> Eugene
> 
> пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 21:10, Tod Fitch  >:
> 
> > On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:36 AM, ael  > > wrote:
> >
> > As a native speaker, I do not recognise "canal" as appropriate for
> > irrigation. That is not to say that some canals may also be used
> > partly for irrigation.
> >
> > But the phrase "irrigation ditch" is common and understood.  Bear in
> > mind that the UK is mainly a fairly wet place, so the need for
> > substantial irrigation is not high except in some special cases.  The
> > unqualified word "ditch" would normally be understood as an artificial
> > unlined and usually small watercourse. But also, in certain contexts,
> > for a historic trench acting as a defense or fence, not necessarily
> > containing water.
> >
> > That seems to accord with a the sub tag irrigation=yes on ditches -
> > and maybe on other waterways if that is one of the uses/functions.
> >
> > ael
> >
> 
> +1
> 
> In the desert where I was raised the cotton fields were surrounded with 
> “irrigation ditches”, or “ditches” for short. The fields were watered from 
> the ditches by either syphon hoses or sluice gates.
> 
> Later, when working on road projects, I found that the low areas on the sides 
> of roads (often used as “side borrow” areas during construction of the 
> roadway) were formally called “drainage ditches” or just “ditches” for short.
> 
> So to me a ditch is simply a channel dug to move water.
> 
> But I am an American and our terms diverge somewhat from UK usage. So I 
> looked it up in my older paper version of the OED to find the first two 
> definition are “1. An excavation narrow in proportion to its length; the 
> trench or fosse of a fortification, etc.”. “2. Such a hollow dug out to 
> receive or conduct water, esp. to carry off the surface drainage of a road or 
> field, etc.”
> 
> Based on the second, I can see the reason why some would conflate “drainage 
> ditch” with simply “ditch”. But I don’t see from this where even in UK usage 
> a ditch has to be for drainage. It is simply a long narrow excavation and, in 
> the waterway sense, dug to conduct water from one place to another.
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> tf
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

Tod, what would be definition of "drain"?

Eugene

пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 21:10, Tod Fitch :

>
> > On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:36 AM, ael  wrote:
> >
> > As a native speaker, I do not recognise "canal" as appropriate for
> > irrigation. That is not to say that some canals may also be used
> > partly for irrigation.
> >
> > But the phrase "irrigation ditch" is common and understood.  Bear in
> > mind that the UK is mainly a fairly wet place, so the need for
> > substantial irrigation is not high except in some special cases.  The
> > unqualified word "ditch" would normally be understood as an artificial
> > unlined and usually small watercourse. But also, in certain contexts,
> > for a historic trench acting as a defense or fence, not necessarily
> > containing water.
> >
> > That seems to accord with a the sub tag irrigation=yes on ditches -
> > and maybe on other waterways if that is one of the uses/functions.
> >
> > ael
> >
>
> +1
>
> In the desert where I was raised the cotton fields were surrounded with
> “irrigation ditches”, or “ditches” for short. The fields were watered from
> the ditches by either syphon hoses or sluice gates.
>
> Later, when working on road projects, I found that the low areas on the
> sides of roads (often used as “side borrow” areas during construction of
> the roadway) were formally called “drainage ditches” or just “ditches” for
> short.
>
> So to me a ditch is simply a channel dug to move water.
>
> But I am an American and our terms diverge somewhat from UK usage. So I
> looked it up in my older paper version of the OED to find the first two
> definition are “1. An excavation narrow in proportion to its length; the
> trench or fosse of a fortification, etc.”. “2. Such a hollow dug out to
> receive or conduct water, esp. to carry off the surface drainage of a road
> or field, etc.”
>
> Based on the second, I can see the reason why some would conflate
> “drainage ditch” with simply “ditch”. But I don’t see from this where even
> in UK usage a ditch has to be for drainage. It is simply a long narrow
> excavation and, in the waterway sense, dug to conduct water from one place
> to another.
>
>
> Cheers!
> tf
>
>
> ___
> 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] Drain vs ditch

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:36 AM, ael  wrote:
> 
> As a native speaker, I do not recognise "canal" as appropriate for
> irrigation. That is not to say that some canals may also be used
> partly for irrigation.
> 
> But the phrase "irrigation ditch" is common and understood.  Bear in
> mind that the UK is mainly a fairly wet place, so the need for
> substantial irrigation is not high except in some special cases.  The
> unqualified word "ditch" would normally be understood as an artificial
> unlined and usually small watercourse. But also, in certain contexts,
> for a historic trench acting as a defense or fence, not necessarily
> containing water.
> 
> That seems to accord with a the sub tag irrigation=yes on ditches -
> and maybe on other waterways if that is one of the uses/functions.
> 
> ael
> 

+1

In the desert where I was raised the cotton fields were surrounded with 
“irrigation ditches”, or “ditches” for short. The fields were watered from the 
ditches by either syphon hoses or sluice gates.

Later, when working on road projects, I found that the low areas on the sides 
of roads (often used as “side borrow” areas during construction of the roadway) 
were formally called “drainage ditches” or just “ditches” for short.

So to me a ditch is simply a channel dug to move water.

But I am an American and our terms diverge somewhat from UK usage. So I looked 
it up in my older paper version of the OED to find the first two definition are 
“1. An excavation narrow in proportion to its length; the trench or fosse of a 
fortification, etc.”. “2. Such a hollow dug out to receive or conduct water, 
esp. to carry off the surface drainage of a road or field, etc.”

Based on the second, I can see the reason why some would conflate “drainage 
ditch” with simply “ditch”. But I don’t see from this where even in UK usage a 
ditch has to be for drainage. It is simply a long narrow excavation and, in the 
waterway sense, dug to conduct water from one place to another.


Cheers!
tf




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Well, trailheads as defined in this basic proposition have been mapped, and
continue to be mapped all over the world. I guess there must be people who
think it useful, and others who think not.

Very OSM.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 18:16 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 11/01/2019 17:05, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >  The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead
>
> No - it really isn't.  That was my entire point.  I'm willing to bet a
> small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking
> past that info board will say "oh look - that's a trailhead for the TPT".
>
> The problem with trying to shoe-horn other features into a particular
> definition is that it dilutes the value of the features with that tag
> that have already been mapped - in this case trailheads where "everyone"
> will agree that they are trailheads.
>
> That's not to say that the features that you're trying to record aren't
> very important - I'm sure that they are, and it would make total sense
> for a Dutch-focused transport, cycling or wanderroute-oriented map to
> show them.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/01/2019 17:05, Peter Elderson wrote:

 The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead


No - it really isn't.  That was my entire point.  I'm willing to bet a 
small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking 
past that info board will say "oh look - that's a trailhead for the TPT".


The problem with trying to shoe-horn other features into a particular 
definition is that it dilutes the value of the features with that tag 
that have already been mapped - in this case trailheads where "everyone" 
will agree that they are trailheads.


That's not to say that the features that you're trying to record aren't 
very important - I'm sure that they are, and it would make total sense 
for a Dutch-focused transport, cycling or wanderroute-oriented map to 
show them.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

For the basic trailhead definition, extra's are not required or implied.
Just a (visibly) designated place for people to start a trail.
The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead, not a Dutch TOP.
Nederland has trailheads other than TOPs.

Other tags that may be used with a trailhead node to map specific details
or accompanying features for a particular trailhead are another issue, and
will probably vary a lot according to country, specific location and
judgment by the local mapper.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 17:45 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 11/01/2019 13:51, Steve Doerr wrote:
>
> On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.
>
>
> Agreed
>
> designation = toeristisch_overstappunt
>
>
> Notwithstanding the 'It's not a "legal classification"' that was
> top-posted in a follow-up message, that's a better option than anything
> else so far.
>
> There's actually something that essentially conforms to
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt /
> https://translate.google.com/#view=home=translate=nl=en=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FToeristisch_Overstappunt
> outside of Chesterfield station in the UK .  There's no TOP-style "obelisk"
> but there is the very prominent logo of the Trans-Pennine Trail, which is
> the path that it serves.  I've just added the info board at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6201454917 , but the other features
> (easy access from multiple modes of transport) were there already.
>
> There's no way that I'd map it as a trailhead though, whereas the ones
> that Kevin Kenny describes in his mail today obviously are.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Markus]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:24, Hufkratzer  wrote:
>
> and the German page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:waterway=ditch
> mentions "Bewässerungsgraben" which means irrigation ditch.

A wiki page in non-English language should be a translation. Defining
a tag differently is problematical as its meaning becomes diluted or
worst gets lost.

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/01/2019 13:51, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:

All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.




Agreed


designation = toeristisch_overstappunt




Notwithstanding the 'It's not a "legal classification"' that was 
top-posted in a follow-up message, that's a better option than anything 
else so far.


There's actually something that essentially conforms to 
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt / 
https://translate.google.com/#view=home=translate=nl=en=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FToeristisch_Overstappunt 
outside of Chesterfield station in the UK .  There's no TOP-style 
"obelisk" but there is the very prominent logo of the Trans-Pennine 
Trail, which is the path that it serves.  I've just added the info board 
at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6201454917 , but the other 
features (easy access from multiple modes of transport) were there already.


There's no way that I'd map it as a trailhead though, whereas the ones 
that Kevin Kenny describes in his mail today obviously are.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[ael]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 04:29:05PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 00:40, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone please explain the difference between waterway=ditch and drain?
> > As far as I understand the description on the English wiki they differ in 
> > usage:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
> >
> > drain - usually lined with concrete or similar and used to carry 
> > superfluous water like storm water or industrial discharge
> > ditch - used for irrigation
> >
> > But the Russian wiki says that irrigation waterways should be tagged as 
> > drains.
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:waterway
> 
> I can't find any information – neither on the English wiki nor on the
> Russian translation – that either waterway=drain or waterway=ditch is
> used for irrigation. They are both used to tag stretches of waters
> carrying superfluous water, e.g. for drainage. As defined on the wiki,
> the difference between ditch and drain is that waterway=drain is lined
> with concrete or similar:

As a native speaker, I do not recognise "canal" as appropriate for
irrigation. That is not to say that some canals may also be used
partly for irrigation.

But the phrase "irrigation ditch" is common and understood.  Bear in
mind that the UK is mainly a fairly wet place, so the need for
substantial irrigation is not high except in some special cases.  The
unqualified word "ditch" would normally be understood as an artificial
unlined and usually small watercourse. But also, in certain contexts,
for a historic trench acting as a defense or fence, not necessarily
containing water.

That seems to accord with a the sub tag irrigation=yes on ditches -
and maybe on other waterways if that is one of the uses/functions.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

>
> I propose to delete that proposal from the wiki as it contradicts the
> definition of waterway=ditch.

I don't think we should delete it because "ditch" in reality does stand for
both land drainage and irrigation.
In other words "ditches" are used to drain surplus water from wetland and
supply water to dry land.
Whereas "drains" are used to drain storm or waste water or industrial
discharge and are usually lined with concrete or similar.

I suggest we update the definitions on the wiki to reflect these statement
clearly.

пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 19:01, Markus :

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:42, Eugene Podshivalov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Markus, you can find that in the "How to Map" section of the ditch
> proper page:
> > "If the ditch is used for irrigation, the usage of irrigation=yes is
> proposed."
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dditch
> > i.e. irrigation ditche should be maps as waterway=ditch + irrigation=yes.
>
> Oh, please excuse me, I missed that.
>
> It says 'proposed', so it isn't standard mapping practice. I also
> couldn't find any discussion about that tag:
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22irrigation%3Dyes%22
>
> Besides, the standard tag for waterway tagging is usage=*, e.g.
> usage=irrigation:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:usage#With_waterways
>
> I propose to delete that proposal from the wiki as it contradicts the
> definition of waterway=ditch.
>
> ___
> 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] Drain vs ditch

[Hufkratzer]

There is an abandoned proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ditch
titled "Drainage/Irrigation Ditch"

and the German page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:waterway=ditch
mentions "Bewässerungsgraben" which means irrigation ditch.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Markus]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:42, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
>
> Markus, you can find that in the "How to Map" section of the ditch proper 
> page:
> "If the ditch is used for irrigation, the usage of irrigation=yes is 
> proposed."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dditch
> i.e. irrigation ditche should be maps as waterway=ditch + irrigation=yes.

Oh, please excuse me, I missed that.

It says 'proposed', so it isn't standard mapping practice. I also
couldn't find any discussion about that tag:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22irrigation%3Dyes%22

Besides, the standard tag for waterway tagging is usage=*, e.g.
usage=irrigation:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:usage#With_waterways

I propose to delete that proposal from the wiki as it contradicts the
definition of waterway=ditch.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 18:30, Markus :

> Hi!
> I can't find any information – neither on the English wiki nor on the
> Russian translation – that either waterway=drain or waterway=ditch is
> used for irrigation.


Markus, you can find that in the "How to Map" section of the ditch proper
page:
"If the ditch is used for irrigation, the usage of irrigation=yes is
proposed."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dditch
i.e. irrigation ditche should be maps as waterway=ditch + irrigation=yes.

Eugene

пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 18:30, Markus :

> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 00:40, Eugene Podshivalov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone please explain the difference between waterway=ditch and
> drain?
> > As far as I understand the description on the English wiki they differ
> in usage:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
> >
> > drain - usually lined with concrete or similar and used to carry
> superfluous water like storm water or industrial discharge
> > ditch - used for irrigation
> >
> > But the Russian wiki says that irrigation waterways should be tagged as
> drains.
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:waterway
>
> I can't find any information – neither on the English wiki nor on the
> Russian translation – that either waterway=drain or waterway=ditch is
> used for irrigation. They are both used to tag stretches of waters
> carrying superfluous water, e.g. for drainage. As defined on the wiki,
> the difference between ditch and drain is that waterway=drain is lined
> with concrete or similar:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain
>
> If you want to tag an artificial stretch of water used to carry useful
> water for irrigation – as well as transportation and power generation
> –, there is waterway=canal:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> 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] Drain vs ditch

[Markus]

Hi!

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 00:40, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
>
> Can anyone please explain the difference between waterway=ditch and drain?
> As far as I understand the description on the English wiki they differ in 
> usage:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
>
> drain - usually lined with concrete or similar and used to carry superfluous 
> water like storm water or industrial discharge
> ditch - used for irrigation
>
> But the Russian wiki says that irrigation waterways should be tagged as 
> drains.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:waterway

I can't find any information – neither on the English wiki nor on the
Russian translation – that either waterway=drain or waterway=ditch is
used for irrigation. They are both used to tag stretches of waters
carrying superfluous water, e.g. for drainage. As defined on the wiki,
the difference between ditch and drain is that waterway=drain is lined
with concrete or similar:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain

If you want to tag an artificial stretch of water used to carry useful
water for irrigation – as well as transportation and power generation
–, there is waterway=canal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Sorry if I was not clear.

This example matches the basic description you gave. It is not just a
crossing, there is more: a guidepost, a register, i.e. visiblty designated,
and it is listed and customary.

Nothing in the basic description is specific for TOPs.

With "Excludes ... " I thought of the suggestion by someone on this list
that all crossings could be marked as trailheads because you can start a
route at any crossing.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 15:46 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> On 1/11/19 2:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes
> > locations where a trail just crosses a road.
>
> Here we go again.
>
> Some of the trailheads I've used are exactly that. One of those that I
> can recall in particular is an important trailhead. If you start away
> from it, it will be 60 km before you reach the next road that a car can
> drive on, and another 25 to reach a town where you can get supplies or
> assistance. If I recall correctly (it's about three years since I was up
> that way) all there is at the trailhead is a guidepost (there's a
> register book, but it's in the woods maybe 400 m to discourage
> vandalism). If you want to park a car, you do that at a county
> maintenance garage that's about half a km away on the highway.
>
> And yes, this *is* a customary and designated place for starting/ending
> a trip It's a 220 km trail, so most hikers don't do it in one shot. It's
> a wilderness trail, so it simply doesn't have a lot of facilities other
> than at its endpoints. A trailhead on that trail is simply any place
> with highway access - and I can count them on my fingers, including a
> couple that have access trails that aren't the main trail (maybe about a
> 5 km trip to get to the road from the main trail) and another couple
> that cross 4WD-only roads.
>
> There's no government agency designating the trailheads. The trail is
> maintained by a hiking club, with the cooperation of the state
> Department of Environmental Conservation. (The maintenance is haphazard,
> as you'd expect on a trail that remote. That's part of the experience.)
> The trailheads, however, are listed in guidebooks, and appear in a
> shapefile that I get from the DEC that describes points of interest on
> state-owned land. (I do *not* import that file because of data quality
> issues.)
>
> Despite your repeated denials, you're continuing to try to invent a set
> of definitions that, at least in NL, will encompass all TOPs and nothing
> else. If that's your aim, then invent a tag for TOP and use it,
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On 1/11/19 2:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes 
locations where a trail just crosses a road.


Here we go again.

Some of the trailheads I've used are exactly that. One of those that I 
can recall in particular is an important trailhead. If you start away 
from it, it will be 60 km before you reach the next road that a car can 
drive on, and another 25 to reach a town where you can get supplies or 
assistance. If I recall correctly (it's about three years since I was up 
that way) all there is at the trailhead is a guidepost (there's a 
register book, but it's in the woods maybe 400 m to discourage 
vandalism). If you want to park a car, you do that at a county 
maintenance garage that's about half a km away on the highway.


And yes, this *is* a customary and designated place for starting/ending 
a trip It's a 220 km trail, so most hikers don't do it in one shot. It's 
a wilderness trail, so it simply doesn't have a lot of facilities other 
than at its endpoints. A trailhead on that trail is simply any place 
with highway access - and I can count them on my fingers, including a 
couple that have access trails that aren't the main trail (maybe about a 
5 km trip to get to the road from the main trail) and another couple 
that cross 4WD-only roads.


There's no government agency designating the trailheads. The trail is 
maintained by a hiking club, with the cooperation of the state 
Department of Environmental Conservation. (The maintenance is haphazard, 
as you'd expect on a trail that remote. That's part of the experience.) 
The trailheads, however, are listed in guidebooks, and appear in a 
shapefile that I get from the DEC that describes points of interest on 
state-owned land. (I do *not* import that file because of data quality 
issues.)


Despite your repeated denials, you're continuing to try to invent a set 
of definitions that, at least in NL, will encompass all TOPs and nothing 
else. If that's your aim, then invent a tag for TOP and use it,



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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

It's not a "legal classification".

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 14:53 schreef Steve Doerr :

> On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.
>
>
> designation = toeristisch_overstappunt
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_1248141136862295208_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Steve Doerr]

On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:

All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.



designation = toeristisch_overstappunt



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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

To me, coming up with a tag specific ony to this localised series of
trailheads is not right.

Again, this argument is not relevant for the issue of basic trailhead
tagging.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 13:58 schreef Paul Allen :

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:45, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
>> Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia
>> reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept
>> described on the wikipedia page.
>>
>
> Why would you do this?  People keep making analogies to point out to you
> that this is not a
> sensible thing to do.  And you agree that it is not sensible to link every
> footpath to a wikipedia
> page explaining what a footpath is.  You agree that is it not sensible to
> link every bridleway to
> a wikipedia entry explaining what a bridleway is.  You agree that it is
> not sensible to link every
> church to a wikipedia page explaining what a church is.  The rest of us
> think that, for the same
> reasons, it is not sensible to link every TOP to a wikipedia explaining
> what a TOP is.
>
> All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.  That way, if it's
> implemented properly, when
> people use the query tool on the node (which they'd have to do anyway if
> you persuaded the rest
> of us to agree with your idea of tagging TOPs with a wikipedia entry),
> they see a list of tags for
> the node.  Clickable tags and values, which lead to the relevant OSM wiki
> page defining what the
> value means.
>
> Coming up with a tag for TOPs is the right way to do it.  Adding the
> *same* wikipedia tag to every
> TOP, as you want to do, is the wrong way to do it.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:45, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia
> reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept
> described on the wikipedia page.
>

Why would you do this?  People keep making analogies to point out to you
that this is not a
sensible thing to do.  And you agree that it is not sensible to link every
footpath to a wikipedia
page explaining what a footpath is.  You agree that is it not sensible to
link every bridleway to
a wikipedia entry explaining what a bridleway is.  You agree that it is not
sensible to link every
church to a wikipedia page explaining what a church is.  The rest of us
think that, for the same
reasons, it is not sensible to link every TOP to a wikipedia explaining
what a TOP is.

All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.  That way, if it's
implemented properly, when
people use the query tool on the node (which they'd have to do anyway if
you persuaded the rest
of us to agree with your idea of tagging TOPs with a wikipedia entry), they
see a list of tags for
the node.  Clickable tags and values, which lead to the relevant OSM wiki
page defining what the
value means.

Coming up with a tag for TOPs is the right way to do it.  Adding the *same*
wikipedia tag to every
TOP, as you want to do, is the wrong way to do it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 06:03, Marc Gemis  wrote:

The wiki page you link to defines a ditch as "An small artificial free
> flow waterway used for carrying superfluous water along paths or roads
> for drainage purposes."
> I do not see the word "irrigation" in that definition. It corresponds
> more to what Graeme wrote
>

Depends on your perspective.

Yes, in rainy climes a drain moves water from a field that would otherwise
be waterlogged
and the water goes into a stream or the sewer system.  But in dry climes a
drain moves
water from a tank or other water supply and distribute it around a field.
Are you draining
the field or the tank?  Either way, it's a drain.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

How about the following definitions?
drain - an artificial free flow waterway typically lined with concrete or
similar used for carrying storm water or industrial discharge
ditch - an artificial free flow waterway used for draining or irrigating
land

Eugene

пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 12:02, Hufkratzer :

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:waterway says:
> - drain is for rain or industrial water ("Abwassergraben") -> may be
> wastewater
> - ditch is just for rain water ("Entwässerungsgraben") -> no wastewater
>
> Am 11.1.2019 07:35, schrieb John Willis:
>
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
>  was always under the impression that the ones I encounter between
> farmland and meadows, which typically are surrounded by dirt, ground,
> plants are ditches. That drains are constructed with concrete or
> similar material and that there are normally no plants on the bedding
> of the drain.
>
>
> TL;DR - the connotation of “drain” is a problem. it is not “draining away”
> unwanted water, it is merely moving it around, and this connotation causes
> mapping issues.
>
> 
>
> I like this summary too. I think the issue is that “drain” has a
> connotation of moving water “away” from some spot where it is no longer
> needed or has been used - which is confusing for a lot of irrigation uses.
>
> In places like southern California, which only have large (5x5m) open-air
> aqueduct systems to move usable water, and further distribution handled
> almost 100% by pipe for irrigation or drinking. sewer is also piped and
> handled by treatment plants, and “storm drains" merely channel the
> occasional rain to the ocean.
>
> This makes mapping “drains” and "ditches” is super easy, because almost
> all drains/ditches are moving unwanted rainwater to a waterway/ocean.
>
> but in my area of Japan, each neighborhood has several *Kilometers* of
> tiny concrete roadside “drains” (covered and uncovered) that have little
> doors or valves that farmers can open to flood ditches that flood rice
> fields. there are side channels, small storage ponds (3x3m), and other very
> detailed and intricate water management systems that make a Californian
> like me marvel at the rain management system they have created.  The drains
> act merely as storm drains the rest of the year, and integrate “streams”
> and other natural channels sometimes. but the rain they move is useful for
> irrigation; rain “drained” away from my area is actually irrigation water
> for people further downstream.
>
> the other issue is scale. some concrete drains are very tiny measure less
> than 20cm2, though most are 30cm2 or 50cm2 . most ditches are also roughly
> 30cm2.
>
> if we go by construction, and try to remove connotation of wastewater,
> then I think it is easy to map.
>
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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

[Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[Michael Patrick]

 > Seriously though (& not arguing :-)), "a semi-trailer truck poking out
of a
> roof. Pavement staining and tire marks from fork lifts" wouldn't really be
> enough to say definitely whether you're looking at a roof over an open
area
> or an enclosed building, would it? That truck could be poked out of the
> doors of an enclosed loading dock, & the forklift could be doing the
same?

Usually, no single thing will lead to a conclusion. The identification
'keys'
basically indicate the other things depending on the context one should
look for. Hey, it could be a short truck, too :-) Preponderance of evidence.
Which is why it's useful to use multiple imagery sources.

Bing and Google Maps are aggregators of imagery - they license it from
other companies, at some price, at various resolutions, and what shows
can change over time - urban areas get updated very frequently, not so
much when you get out into the sticks. Even this isn't an absolute, by some
freak of availability we observed a bear on the road of my brother's
property on the Front Range in Montana. Also, the orthorectification
can sometimes be crap ( adjusting for terrain, etc. )

> Yes, if you've got slanting or night time imagery that may help, but I've
> never seen it in the areas I map in :-(>

You can add your own sources to JOSM, the presets are the more or
less globally useful services. Sometimes, you don't need to actually
add it to JOSM to assist, like the building overhang issue. Our
county has phenomenal lidar point data available ( 6"), I can make out
the location of the picket fence on my front lawn. Our state flies
regular oblique photography to monitor coastal conditions, also.
There is an upfront effort of finding what's available, but once you
have the endpoints and sources for your area of interest, it can
make things easier.

For instance:
JOSM displaying the USGS 3DEP ( derived from Lidar surveys )
http://bit.ly/2Rjb8LO
- in some areas it has 1 meter resolution along with slope aspect, etc.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-elevation-map-service-available-usgs-3d-elevation-program
and for thermal ASTER ( Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer)
https://bit.ly/2FoslNE - not great, it's a fairly old platform and varies
between 15 to 90 square
meters per pixel, but I had it handy.

> On the subject of clarity of images. Was mapping the other day (using iD),
> marking buildings in an industrial area. As I said, the photo's weren't
the
> clearest, but I was also peering through the purple haze of the mapped
> area=industrial, which certainly doesn't help matters either :-(

Yeah, we have 308 cloudy days a year. Which underscores the value of
having sources that have multiple times available. Leaf on and leaf off
is also useful. If Bing's blender picked a day when an inversion layer
was occurring, it's nice to pick another day. Night imagery is rare.

The gold standard for this is SAR ( synthetic aperture radar )
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/t/tsx-ng
but  it isn't really mainstream yet, may never be for the general
public for obvious military reasons. Many countries are launching these
platforms, though, so it may be like the 'fuzz' on GPS accuracy,
once everybody has it, they'll open it up.

Depending on your level of commitment, it's useful to have some
minimal skill with QGIS, just for these discernment purposes. Then
you can do things like pansharpening  (
https://www.geoimage.com.au/images/services/pan_sharp_bne_qb.jpg ),
contrast adjustment, etc. very simply just
by altering the layer transparency - tasks that aren't possible in JOSM.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Apply, not translate.

Mappers all over the world have tagged trailheads.
It is up to the mappers to decide if it's useful/worth it to map a
particular location as a trailhead. This holds true for Nederland and
Belgium as well.

If you are at the locations you listed, and you see something there
matching the basic desription, and you find it worth mapping, by all means
feel free. You do not have to run that by me.

The locations now mapped in Nederland match the basic description. They are
visible features marked in the field, clearly designed/designated to start
one ore more trails, they are visibly operated and named, and they are
displayed and used on many searches, maps, apps, routing sites and route
planning sites, I think they are worth mapping.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 09:12 schreef Marc Gemis :

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
> > highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary
> location for starting one or more trails.
>
> So how do we translate the American idea of trail (head) to Belgium
> and The Netherlands.
> Maybe for you it is clear, but I still have no idea what is we should
> consider a trail in Belgium or The Netherlands.
>
> Are the following items trailheads ?
>
> - parkings near Hoge Veluwe (NL), Zoniënwoud, Kalmthoutse Heide and
> any other nature reserve. Many nature reserves in Flanders are very
> small and you cannot walk for hours in them unless you run in circles.
> - parkings near parks (Park van Tervuren) or "landgoed (NL)" (aka manors ?)
> - many signed circular walks start at the square or the church in
> little villages, are they trailheads ? What about the ones starting in
> the bigger towns ?
> - any place where you can start walking on the walking networks ?
> - what about MTB trails or cycling networks ?
> - parkings near the beaches/dunes ?
>
>
> m.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

This is a separate discussion, not specific for trailhead tagging. Let's
keep this thread about basic trailhead tagging.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 09:17 schreef Marc Gemis :

> Just as we do not map a wikipedia link to shop=car to explain the
> concept for shops selling cars, we should perhaps not map wikipedia
> links to explain TOPs.
> We do not link nodes and routes of walking networks to wikipedia pages
> (or other sites) explaining how you have to use them.
> We do not link highway=motorway to a wiki page on osm.org to explain
> the meaning of that concept.
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
> >
> > Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia
> reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept
> described on the wikipedia page.
> > Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g.
> brand:wikipedia or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and
> it's not an operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12
> operators in the end).
> > So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads
> using the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same
> information, on exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the
> existing referencing mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are
> useful if multiple wikipedia references are applicable (according to the
> mapper).
> >
> > But again, this is local additional tagging which other mappers may or
> may not like.
> >
> > I would like to focus on the idea of basic mapping of trailheads fitting
> all trailheads that mappers find useful to map. The basic proposition is:
> >
> > highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary
> location for starting one or more trails.
> > I move to add name=* as important second tag, because I think the place
> will almost always have a designated or customary name which makes it that
> much more usable for searches, lists and maps, but I understand there are
> examples of trailheads without a name.
> >
> > This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes
> locations where a trail just crosses a road. Of course, the whole thing is
> not an obligation. There is no rule that every place fitting the
> description Shall Be Tagged As A Trailhead, just the ones mappers find
> worth tagging.
> >
> >
> >
> > Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 17:47 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
> >>
> >> wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia
> article is about this specific trailhead
> >>
> >> AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages
> describing type of feature, and
> >> at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though
> sooner or later someone would use it
> >> to link "Tree" article from every single natural=tree)
> >>
> >> Maybe tagging operator (and operator:wikipedia) will be enough?
> >>
> >> Jan 10, 2019, 5:06 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
> >>
> >> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
> >>
> >> Mvg Peter Elderson
> >>
> >> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis  het
> volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]
> >>
> >> "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
> >> from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
> >> Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
> >> that operates it is not (see section below)."
> >>
> >> what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
> >> Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
> >> your problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]
> >>
> >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
> >> [2]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
> >>
> >> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is
> in Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place
> for that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
> >> Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
> >> linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
> >> should be discouraged.
> >>
> >> m.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> 

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Hufkratzer]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:waterway says:
- drain is for rain or industrial water ("Abwassergraben") -> may be 
wastewater

- ditch is just for rain water ("Entwässerungsgraben") -> no wastewater

Am 11.1.2019 07:35, schrieb John Willis:



On Jan 11, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Marc Gemis > wrote:


was always under the impression that the ones I encounter between
farmland and meadows, which typically are surrounded by dirt, ground,
plants are ditches. That drains are constructed with concrete or
similar material and that there are normally no plants on the bedding
of the drain.


TL;DR - the connotation of “drain” is a problem. it is not “draining 
away” unwanted water, it is merely moving it around, and this 
connotation causes mapping issues.




I like this summary too. I think the issue is that “drain” has a 
connotation of moving water “away” from some spot where it is no 
longer needed or has been used - which is confusing for a lot of 
irrigation uses.


In places like southern California, which only have large (5x5m) 
open-air aqueduct systems to move usable water, and further 
distribution handled almost 100% by pipe for irrigation or drinking. 
sewer is also piped and handled by treatment plants, and “storm 
drains" merely channel the occasional rain to the ocean.


This makes mapping “drains” and "ditches” is super easy, because 
almost all drains/ditches are moving unwanted rainwater to a 
waterway/ocean.


but in my area of Japan, each neighborhood has several *Kilometers* of 
tiny concrete roadside “drains” (covered and uncovered) that have 
little doors or valves that farmers can open to flood ditches that 
flood rice fields. there are side channels, small storage ponds 
(3x3m), and other very detailed and intricate water management systems 
that make a Californian like me marvel at the rain management system 
they have created.  The drains act merely as storm drains the rest of 
the year, and integrate “streams” and other natural channels 
sometimes. but the rain they move is useful for irrigation; rain 
“drained” away from my area is actually irrigation water for people 
further downstream.


the other issue is scale. some concrete drains are very tiny measure 
less than 20cm2, though most are 30cm2 or 50cm2 . most ditches are 
also roughly 30cm2.


if we go by construction, and try to remove connotation of wastewater, 
then I think it is easy to map.


Javbw


___
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] Quick Building tracing question...

[Tobias Knerr]

On 10.01.19 11:28, Allan Mustard wrote:
> My understanding of the 3D aspect of building:part is that if you draw a
> portion of a building using building:part you have to do the rest of the
> building using building:part as well or the whole building will not
> render in 3D, since 3D software is programmed to ignore the base
> building footprint if building:part is present, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct (according to Simple 3D Buildings tagging).

So if you want to represent the situation in question as a building with
two parts, you could draw a building:part=roof area for the roof, and a
building:part=yes area for the rest of the warehouse. Then surround both
of them with a building=warehouse area, probably re-using the nodes of
the building parts.

Some 3D renderers will attempt to figure out what the mapper might have
intended if this rule isn't followed. But that's undefined behaviour and
will vary considerably between programs, so it shouldn't be relied on.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

Just as we do not map a wikipedia link to shop=car to explain the
concept for shops selling cars, we should perhaps not map wikipedia
links to explain TOPs.
We do not link nodes and routes of walking networks to wikipedia pages
(or other sites) explaining how you have to use them.
We do not link highway=motorway to a wiki page on osm.org to explain
the meaning of that concept.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia 
> reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept 
> described on the wikipedia page.
> Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g. brand:wikipedia 
> or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and it's not an 
> operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12 operators in 
> the end).
> So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads using 
> the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same information, on 
> exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the existing referencing 
> mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are useful if multiple 
> wikipedia references are applicable (according to the mapper).
>
> But again, this is local additional tagging which other mappers may or may 
> not like.
>
> I would like to focus on the idea of basic mapping of trailheads fitting all 
> trailheads that mappers find useful to map. The basic proposition is:
>
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location 
> for starting one or more trails.
> I move to add name=* as important second tag, because I think the place will 
> almost always have a designated or customary name which makes it that much 
> more usable for searches, lists and maps, but I understand there are examples 
> of trailheads without a name.
>
> This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes locations 
> where a trail just crosses a road. Of course, the whole thing is not an 
> obligation. There is no rule that every place fitting the description Shall 
> Be Tagged As A Trailhead, just the ones mappers find worth tagging.
>
>
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 17:47 schreef Mateusz Konieczny 
> :
>>
>> wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia article 
>> is about this specific trailhead
>>
>> AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages 
>> describing type of feature, and
>> at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though 
>> sooner or later someone would use it
>> to link "Tree" article from every single natural=tree)
>>
>> Maybe tagging operator (and operator:wikipedia) will be enough?
>>
>> Jan 10, 2019, 5:06 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>>
>> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
>>
>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>
>> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis  het 
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]
>>
>> "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
>> from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
>> Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
>> that operates it is not (see section below)."
>>
>> what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
>> Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
>> your problem.
>>
>>
>> The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
>> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
>>
>> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in 
>> Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for 
>> that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.
>>
>>
>> Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
>> Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
>> linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
>> should be discouraged.
>>
>> m.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> 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] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location 
> for starting one or more trails.

So how do we translate the American idea of trail (head) to Belgium
and The Netherlands.
Maybe for you it is clear, but I still have no idea what is we should
consider a trail in Belgium or The Netherlands.

Are the following items trailheads ?

- parkings near Hoge Veluwe (NL), Zoniënwoud, Kalmthoutse Heide and
any other nature reserve. Many nature reserves in Flanders are very
small and you cannot walk for hours in them unless you run in circles.
- parkings near parks (Park van Tervuren) or "landgoed (NL)" (aka manors ?)
- many signed circular walks start at the square or the church in
little villages, are they trailheads ? What about the ones starting in
the bigger towns ?
- any place where you can start walking on the walking networks ?
- what about MTB trails or cycling networks ?
- parkings near the beaches/dunes ?


m.

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