Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 10. Mar 2019, at 09:35, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

>> I would support editors proposing to replace it by shop=clothes + clothes=*
> I was about to post to say that - so I support this proposal.
> 


most used values in “clothes” are 
women 
underwear 
children 
men
wedding
sports
yes
workwear
lingerie 

how would “fashion” relate to this, or “boutique”? The first IMHO refers to the 
style of the clothing, the latter to the style they are sold.

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

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

[Jan S]

Am 11. März 2019 00:40:14 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick 
:
>> How about police=detention as a more generic term then?
>>
>
>Yep, that covers it nicely!

Ok, so police=detention be it.

I've also adapted the definition to better distinguish the facilities I have in 
mind from prisons or jails (which, in the US at least, may serve as detention 
facilities even for convicted criminals, like Sheriff's jails) and which should 
be tagged as amenity=prison.

Best, Jan

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

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

[Jan S]

Am 11. März 2019 01:45:56 MEZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg 
:
>> “in China some police divisions even managed to setup their own
>for-profit companies, like hospitals or construction companies, that
>would
>serve general public and compete in business environment in order to
>create
>additional revenue stream for their police division. I don't think it
>would
>be wise to tag them police=hospital or police=commercial either?“
>
>I agree. In Indonesia my local police station has a public clinic,
>pharmacy, daycare, church and mosque. The military base has all of
>these,
>plus some general merchandise shops. It’s a way to improve public
>relations
>(and perhaps make some money?). Oh, and the airfield transports goods
>by
>cargo plane at market price.
>
>But these businesses and services should not be tagged under a “police”
>key

Agreed. But you could map the area as landuse=police?

The police scheme should be limited to "typical" police functions, i.e. law 
enforcement. As always though, there will be cases where it's difficult to tell 
the police from the military or from other civilian offices or functions. These 
cases will inevitably have to be decided individually.

Best, Jan

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

Re: [Tagging] Large areas of landuse=grass in the Netherlands

[Peter Elderson]

You are right about the landuse. Mostly farmland, sometimes meadow/pasture,
sometimes for crop, and that may rotate constantly. INitial tagging is from
an import, I hear. I guess many mappers are content with the green colour
on the map.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 11 mrt. 2019 om 03:16 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> It was recently noticed that most of the grassy rural areas around
> Utrecht in the Netherlands are tagged as landuse=grass. This is
> surprising, because these areas appear to be pasture or meadows, which
> would be tagged as landuse=meadow, or perhaps fallow farmland with a
> grass cover crop, which would normally be tagged as landuse=farmland.
>
> Could someone with local knowledge check the tagging of these areas?
>
> See:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/52.0322/4.7873
>
> ___
> 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] discouraging shop=fashion

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 18:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 10. Mar 2019, at 09:35, Jean-Marc Liotier > wrote:


I would support editors proposing to replace it by shop=clothes + 
clothes=*


I was about to post to say that - so I support this proposal.




most used values in “clothes” are
women
underwear
children
men
wedding
sports
yes
workwear
lingerie

how would “fashion” relate to this, or “boutique”? The first IMHO 
refers to the style of the clothing, the latter to the style they are 
sold.


Humm .. some of that is;
use of the clothing
sex of the user
age of the user

Fashion? I suppose that is a 'use"? Along with sports, workwear, 
wedding, underwear, lingerie?


So I too would sport migration of shop=fashion to shop=clothing, 
clothing=fashion




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

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 09:15 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 11/03/19 18:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> most used values in “clothes” are
> women
> underwear
> children
> men
> wedding
> sports
> yes
> workwear
> lingerie
>
> how would “fashion” relate to this, or “boutique”? The first IMHO refers
> to the style of the clothing, the latter to the style they are sold.
>
>
> Humm .. some of that is;
> use of the clothing
> sex of the user
> age of the user
>
> Fashion? I suppose that is a 'use"? Along with sports, workwear, wedding,
> underwear, lingerie?
>
> So I too would sport migration of shop=fashion to shop=clothing,
> clothing=fashion
>


you have convinced me, if you look at the "clothes" key, the common thing
is they are all sub types of shops, so both, boutique and fashion could fit
well. The apparent sub-category missing from above would be "general
clothes" which would imply only clothing (not a department store), but
sections for men, women and children (and probably lingerie and sports,
while I have hardly ever seen "workwear" in shops like these). Looking
again, there is a category for this with "women;men;children
"
242 times used, "women;men" even has 489. "fashion" is also present with
184 uses (0,9%).
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
This would of course not imply you could get all shops for all kind of
clothing with a simple shop=clothes query, because of shoes, sports,
leather, etc., but it would solve the issues that have been voiced against
boutiques and fashion on the shop level. Looking only at the numbers, it
would be harder to support, because shop=fashion has more uses than any
single clothes-value.

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

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Il giorno sab 9 mar 2019 alle ore 22:15 Tom Pfeifer 
ha scritto:

> I have severe problems with your process. First, yes it is an import. You
called it an import
> yourself ("manually importing") here, and on the Italien list where you
first asked about the
> tagging.
> Where did you see a "100 nodes" limit documented? You are copying from
one database
> into another, and if you do just one node a day, it is a slow import.

As stated in the main wiki page [1], importing is "(also known as Bulk
Importing)". Maybe I misunderstood this wider acceptation when I started a
manual insertion of POIs, limiting by myself the number not to trigger it
as an import.

If anybody in this ML considers that this activity is different from
getting informations from hotel websites and putting them in OSM, I will
immediately abort the insertions.

> You were criticized for stretching the opening_hours syntax to describe
seasonal operations ("Jan 01
> - Dec 31"), but did not respond nor adjust your tagging.

Sorry for that. Is it wrong? I did test it with JOSM OpeningHoursEditor [2]
plugin. If anybopdy in this ML prefers 24/7 I will change the values. I
used "Jan 01 - Dec 31" just to set a value consistent to overall hotel
dataset opening periods.

> Your import focuses on soft business policies, such as allowing pets or
supervising kids. Such
> policies can change even more rapidly, and are better shown in separate
datasets and not OSM itself.

This consideration raises a huge question about italian fuel stations,
since operators, brands and names come and go.
In case of a future regular import, I'll remove pets and childcare,
inserting just phisical elements like gymn, garage, air-conditioning,
welness etc.

> Your import does not include any check, how current or old the data in
the imported set are. In the
> hotel business, things can change very fast. Hotels open and close, and
change ownership and
> operations.>

In umap, dataset layer you can read  RAFVG opendata, ottobre [october]
2017. Anyway terms like "very fast" are subjective: some time ago I aborted
a draft for Bed& Breakfast import bacause surveys detected some business
shut downs. So who's in charge of the "very" fast evaluations? If we demand
that every entry in possible source dataaset is right what do you think
will be the situation in OSM today?

> The link on your Umap site leads to [5], which is licensed under the
Italian Open Data License,
> linked here [6]. It requires attribution, machine-translated: "On
condition of: indicate the source
> of the Information and the name of the Licensor, including, if possible,
a copy of this license or a
> link (link) to it."
> You have not attributed correctly. You changesets, e.g. [7], give in the
CS comment "RAFVG source",
> which is an incomprehensible acronym if you don't know the context. The
CS has no source tag at all
> (although the editor you use has a mechanism for it),

You are right, but I can't find that mechanism in Level0

>thus you do not name the source correctly, you
> do not name the Licensor, and you do not include a link although
possible. You have also not checked
> if the attribution on the changeset only would be sufficient.> You use
and advertise in your umap the use of Level0 as an editor. This tool is
excellent for
> quickly fixing a tag, but I would find it error-prone to upload mass
changes without a validation step.
> Thus I conclude: Visualising the dataset in your Umap approach [1] is an
excellent idea, unreviewed
> copying of the data into OSM is not.

Anyway, If you consider the activity is definitely an import, I'll revert
involved changesets,  taking in account  the above disapproval points.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/OpeningHoursEditor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

[marc marc]

Le 11.03.19 à 12:20, Cascafico Giovanni a écrit :
> limiting by myself the number not to trigger it as an import.
> 
> If anybody in this ML considers that this activity is different from 
> getting informations from hotel websites and putting them in OSM, I will 
> immediately abort the insertions.

splitting a import into several changeset to "be under the radar" is 
still an import and is indeed not the same as getting info from the poi 
it-self
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 8:10 AM by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 10. Mar 2019, at 09:35, Jean-Marc Liotier <> j...@liotier.org 
> > > wrote:
>
>>> I would support editorsproposing to replace it by shop=clothes + 
>>> clothes=*
>>>
>>
>> I was about to post to say that - so I support this proposal.
>>
>>
>
>
> most used values in “clothes” are 
> women 
> underwear 
> children 
> men
> wedding
> sports
> yes
> workwear
> lingerie 
>
> how would “fashion” relate to this
>
Depends on what people mean by "fashion". From discussion it seems that
various people had different opinion what is the meaning of it.

For "shop=clothes clothes=fashion" I would consider clothes=fashion as also 
unclear 
and a bad idea. 

>  or “boutique”? The first IMHO refers to the style of the clothing
>
What kind of style? Can you link some image examples?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 12:54 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> Depends on what people mean by "fashion". From discussion it seems that
> various people had different opinion what is the meaning of it.
>
> For "shop=clothes clothes=fashion" I would consider clothes=fashion as
> also unclear
> and a bad idea.
>
> or “boutique”? The first IMHO refers to the style of the clothing
>
> What kind of style? Can you link some image examples?
>



kind of style: "wedding", "sports", "workwear", "lingerie" (ok, you might
also call this "type of clothes"). Style of shop,
fashion: loud music, young people, things you will not want to wear in 10
years time
boutique: small shop, likely more expensive than other clothing shops,
either no chain name or maybe luxury chain (unsure about the latter)

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

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 10, 2019, 10:28 PM by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:36, Jean-Marc Liotier <> j...@liotier.org 
> > > wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/19 9:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>>> Mar 9, 2019, 11:16 PM by >>> selfishseaho...@gmail.com 
>>> >>
 I'm in favour of deprecating  shop=fashion because of its unclear
 meaning

>>> Based on discussion(s) itseems that there is no benefit from 
>>> keeping this tag.
>>>
>>> I would support editorsproposing to replace it by shop=clothes + 
>>> clothes=*
>>>
>>
>> I was about to post to say that - so I support this proposal.
>>
>>
> I agree, so what is the procedure for deprecating a tag?
>
I expanded a bit 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features 


Tags are typically discussed within wider community, for example at tagging 
mailing list in way that allows everybody to contribute. In cases of consensus 
that tagging in a different way is preferable tag can be considered as 
deprecated. There are various ways that together result in reduced tag usage 
and each requires consensus or agreement from relevant people

* Tag can be described as unwanted together with reasons for that on OSM Wiki
* Validator complaints may be added to JOSM, iD, Osmose and other validators or 
other Quality assurance tools
**Typically it requires opening issue on bug tracker of a given project
* Support may be dropped from presets and rendering of editors
** Typically it requires opening issue on bug tracker of a given project
* People may check tag usage in their area and edit objects to improve tagging
* In rare cases automatic edits can be done to improve tagging. Such edits must 
follow Automated Edits code of conduct

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

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 12:20 PM by cascaf...@gmail.com:

> Il giorno sab 9 mar 2019 alle ore 22:15 Tom Pfeifer <> t.pfei...@computer.org 
> > > ha scritto:
>
> > I have severe problems with your process. First, yes it is an import. You 
> > called it an import
> > yourself ("manually importing") here, and on the Italien list where you 
> > first asked about the
> > tagging.
> > Where did you see a "100 nodes" limit documented? You are copying from one 
> > database
> > into another, and if you do just one node a day, it is a slow import.
>
> As stated in the main wiki page [1], importing is "(also known as Bulk 
> Importing)". 
>
Fixed in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Import&diff=1820348&oldid=1551233

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

[Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi all,

I’m Lorenzo, the vice-president of PoliMappers, the YouthMappers chapter in 
Politecnico di Milano, we are going to organize a mapathon in Milan talking 
about deforestation, in collaboration with the Semillero Geolab UdeA, a 
Colombian chapter of YouthMappers.

We will would like to map land-cover in an area near the Amazonian forest, the 
mappers will be people that have few experience in mapping so we are thinking 
to map basic elements in landuse and we found this proposal [1] on map basic 
elements.

The idea was to map: bareland, artificial surface and forest.

Should be a good idea to map following this idea?

Thanks for all the possible answer.

Best regards,
Lorenzo Stucchi


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rudolf/draft_landcover

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Peter Elderson]

you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users, but you
should know that
a. landcover is not currently rendered by OSM Carto.
b. THe proposal states that "All areas in the landcover features of natural
=* will be transfered to
landcover =*. ...The tags
 landuse =grass
, landuse
=forest
 and landuse
=railway
 will be
transfered to landcover 
=*." This is certainly not going to happen any time soon.

If you decide to use landcover for existing area's, use it in addition to
current mapping. For instance, if you replace landuse=grass with
landcover=grass, or natural=wood with landcover=trees, most renderings
suddenly will show these areas as grey. I would not recommend that, in fact
you'll get a storm of protest! So in these cases, you use landcover in
addition to landuse, and when landcover gets rendered (which I'm sure it
will, some time) you can alter landuse without greying the map.

To add patches of trees and grass in an area with landuse=residential,
industrial or leisure, you can use landcover, though it will not yet show
op on OSM Carto.

Also, major editors allow entering landcover, but have no special support
for landcover tags.

Of course, if you make your own map style for the project, you can make
landcover show up, just remember that the standard OSM Carto map does not.


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 11 mrt. 2019 om 15:16 schreef Lorenzo Stucchi <
lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>:

> Hi all,
>
> I’m Lorenzo, the vice-president of PoliMappers, the YouthMappers chapter
> in Politecnico di Milano, we are going to organize a mapathon in Milan
> talking about deforestation, in collaboration with the Semillero Geolab
> UdeA, a Colombian chapter of YouthMappers.
>
> We will would like to map land-cover in an area near the Amazonian forest,
> the mappers will be people that have few experience in mapping so we are
> thinking to map basic elements in landuse and we found this proposal [1] on
> map basic elements.
>
> The idea was to map: bareland, artificial surface and forest.
>
> Should be a good idea to map following this idea?
>
> Thanks for all the possible answer.
>
> Best regards,
> Lorenzo Stucchi
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rudolf/draft_landcover
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Mar 2019, at 19:07, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> That difference might confuse  - that's an American rather than a UK 
> difference, I think.  Where "jail" (or even "gaol") is used in the UK it's 
> essentially a synonym for prison. 


in Germany, the cells in a police facility would not be called a prison, AFAIK 
there are only “drunk tanks” (Ausnüchterungszelle / sobering cell) and people 
would otherwise (pre-trial detention) go to a real prison (government facility 
/ de: JVA). There are also other places where people are forcibly confined 
which aren’t “prisons”, e.g. psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:

> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>
6000 users? How you know that?

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 17:18, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>
> 6000 users? How you know that?
>

I'm pretty sure overpass-turbo can do that.  I can't figure out how you ask
it to do that, but at
least I've given you part of the answer.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 6:29 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 17:18, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by >> pelder...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>>>
>> 6000 users? How you know that?
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure overpass-turbo can do that.  I can't figure out how you ask 
> it to do that, but at
> least I've given you part of the answer.
>
If it is done with Overpass turbo then I would love to see query, I tried 
something like that
in past and it worked only for very rarely used tags due to
performance issues.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>
> 6000 users? How you know that?

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover says:

"Objects with this key were last edited by 2 025 different users."

Cheers,

Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 3:15 PM by lorenzostucch...@outlook.it:

> The idea was to map: bareland, artificial surface and forest.
>
> Should be a good idea to map following this idea?
>
Mapping forests (or more accurately tree-covered areas) is useful and welcomed.

But two other categories are more complicated, in OSM areas are mapped 
more accurately.

For example we are not mapping "bareland"/"artificial surface" but more specific
objects like 

landuse=construction  (construction site)
landuse=farmland
landuse=meadow 
landuse=railway 
natural=beach
landuse=industrial
etc etc

Note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rudolf/draft_landcover 

is proposal from 2014 and is rarely used (not used) in mapping.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 6:44 PM by s...@smz.it:

> On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>  
>
>> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by >> pelder...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>> you can use landcover, ithas about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>>>
>> 6000 users? How you know that?
>>
>
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover 
> >  says:
>
>
> "> Objects with this key were last edited by 2 025 differentusers."
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Sergio
>
>
What answers completely different question (it is possible that 
tag was added by 200 users and then other people edited objects 
with it).

Though given that even this value is so low makes 6000 
people adding this tag even less likely.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jan S]

Am 11. März 2019 17:32:13 MEZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer 
:
>
>in Germany, the cells in a police facility would not be called a
>prison, AFAIK there are only “drunk tanks” (Ausnüchterungszelle /
>sobering cell) and people would otherwise (pre-trial detention) go to a
>real prison (government facility / de: JVA).

Not always. Central big police detention facilities are also used during 
demonstrations or large events like football matches and then people may be 
held even during several days. Also, here in Hesse the police runs the 
detention facility for deportees, which, however, is another borderline case 
due to the longer detention periods there... I'd tend to tag it as prison, not 
as police detention 
(https://www.polizei.hessen.de/dienststellen/polizeipraesidium-suedhessen/ueber-uns/broker.jsp?uMen=c4970ee1-825a-f6f8-6373-a91bbcb63046&_ic_uCon=b2050950-dce8-c761-560d-877101467e03&uTem=20470d14-3169-f841-ab27-2006165474d5)

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Tod Fitch]

> On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
> 
> Note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rudolf/draft_landcover 
> 
> is proposal from 2014 and is rarely used (not used) in mapping.
> 

Maybe not that one, but I certainly map per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover specifically I use it to map 
areas with trees, scrub and grass.

Cheers!




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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 11 March 2019, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
> [...]
>
> The idea was to map: bareland, artificial surface and forest.

As a general principle in OSM we map positively what verifiably exists, 
not the lack of something.  What you call "bareland" is at odds with 
that because it is essentially negatively defined (as land lacking 
vegetation).  So in terms of choosing tags i would recommend you focus 
on positively characterizing what you observe.

In areas of deforestation large areas of bare ground is typically a 
transient state that will overgrow again rather quickly (within months 
or a few years) with some form of vegetation, ob become regularly 
maintained by humans in some form (like farmland).

We also do not have any established tagging for what you 
call "artificial surface" because artificial surfaces are created 
usually for specific purposes and we typically map them depending on 
this purpose.  

Whatever tagging concept you choose you should document your plans and 
discuss them with the local community beforehand to make sure your 
plans are compatible with the mapping and tagging habits of the local 
community.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[marc marc]

Le 11.03.19 à 19:27, Christoph Hormann a écrit :
> we map positively what verifiably exists

with different imagery, it is possible to verify:
- that an old one shows trees: old:landcover=trees
- that a more recent one shows no trees. landcover=xyz landuse=farmland
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 8:58 PM by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:

> Le 11.03.19 à 19:27, Christoph Hormann a écrit :
>
>> we map positively what verifiably exists
>>
>
> with different imagery, it is possible to verify:
> - that an old one shows trees: old:landcover=trees
> - that a more recent one shows no trees. landcover=xyz landuse=farmland
>
We do not map what was in the past and disappeared.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Large areas of landuse=grass in the Netherlands

[Tomas Straupis]

  Some time ago I was proposing to introduce topology rules, at least
locally. Those (besides a lot of other stuff) would cover which
polygons can be above which polygons, which polygons can not be above
which polygons etc. Such rules are already used for years in Lithuania
in regards of forests.

  F.e. landuse=forest can not intersect/cover
landuse=residential|industrial|commercial|reservoir, natural=water,
waterway=riverbank. But for small patches of trees we use
natural=wood, which can ONLY be above (be covered by)
landuse=residential|commercial|industrial.

  Idea is that for large scale maps you use all of these polygons
(with natural=wood on top) and for small scale maps you simply ignore
natural=wood.
  This simplifies cartographic tasks a lot. It is also capable of
separating micromapping without the need for complex generalisation
calculations.

  As far as I understand, landcover tags are supposed to be used for
exactly the same tasks (as natural=wood in my example). This means
that all natural=wood polygons in Lithuania (not too much - 1500)
could be replaced with landcover=wood|forest|trees (whatever) if that
was rendered in OSM-Carto, as some people in Lithuania still use
OSM-Carto data visualisation and not the local OSM maps.

  If I understand correctly, landuse=grass is the same thing for
grass: landuse=grass is a micromapping (for large scale maps only),
landuse=meadow is for smaller scale (actual landuse) mapping. So you
could have the same topology rules in Netherlands to check
automatically that all landuse=grass is above some actual landuse
(hence the need for landcover to be able to have both). This way there
would be an automated way to check quality of OSM data.

  IMPORTANT: There is no way to ensure the quality of OSM data without
automated checks doing MOST of the work.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Peter Elderson]

Sorry, 2000.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 11 mrt. 2019 om 18:18 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>
> 6000 users? How you know that?
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping deforestation

[marc marc]

Le 11.03.19 à 21:36, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Mar 11, 2019, 8:58 PM by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:
> 
> Le 11.03.19 à 19:27, Christoph Hormann a écrit :
> 
> we map positively what verifiably exists
> 
> 
> with different imagery, it is possible to verify:
> - that an old one shows trees: old:landcover=trees
> - that a more recent one shows no trees. landcover=xyz landuse=farmland
> 
> We do not map what was in the past and disappeared.

who is we ? check taginfo for ex 288k old_name or some lifecycle prefix
if some users keep old name, I see no issue to keep the old cover in 
addition to the new one.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 19:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> The apparent sub-category missing from above would be "general clothes"
> which would imply only clothing (not a department store), but sections for
> men, women and children (and probably lingerie and sports, while I have
> hardly ever seen "workwear" in shops like these).
>

clothes=general or clothes=yes?


> Looking again, there is a category for this with "women;men;children
> "
> 242 times used, "women;men" even has 489. "fashion" is also present with
> 184 uses (0,9%).
>

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
>

& there's also myriads of men;women;children, women;children;men,
women;babies;children & every other possible combination you could ever
imagine (or create by a typo!)


> This would of course not imply you could get all shops for all kind of
> clothing with a simple shop=clothes query, because of shoes, sports,
> leather, etc., but it would solve the issues that have been voiced against
> boutiques and fashion on the shop level.
>


> Looking only at the numbers, it would be harder to support, because
> shop=fashion has more uses than any single clothes-value.
>

Yeah, 230k shop=clothes but only 20k of all "types" of clothes combined,
then 7000 =fashion & 15000 =boutique, but from the comments here, you have
to wonder how many of those "boutiques" are actually selling high-level
(very expensive!) clothing?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[François Lacombe]

Hi Sergio,

The proposal aims to map the way lines are bound to their supports.
In my mind, attachement = {Insulator set ; clamps ; accessories to secure
the insulators on crossarms} for a bare power conductor.
Further keys can give details about each item in this set (but out of the
current proposal).
For insulated cables you don't have insulators but the attachment methods
are the same.

Here are illustrations :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop_suspension.jpg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Power_cable_suspension_attachment.png

Keep in mind that currently, it is possible to give the same information
with tower:type=suspension.
As explained in the rationale, :type suffix is meaningless and gather too
much possibilities to be usable.

Hope it's clearer

François

Le dim. 10 mars 2019 à 23:04, Sergio Manzi  a écrit :

> François,
>
> Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (*some still needs some
> polishing I gues*s), but anyway (*and putting aside my reluctance to map
> such things*) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with
> this proposal, at its very essence.
>
> I still don't understand what are *the objects* that one is expected to
> map with this tag.
>
> Taking as an example the first tower you depict for
> "line_attachment=suspension" (
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg)
> what are they? The tower (*BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?*)
> The "*branch*" (*sorry, I'm missing the correct word...*) of the
> tower/pylon to which the insulator sets are suspended? The
> rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending the insulator sets under the "branch"?
> The insulator sets themselves? The clamps suspending the conductors under
> the insulator sets?
>
> Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow
> pointing to the object of this tag?
>
> TIA,
>
> Sergio
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-11 18:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Mar 11, 2019, 6:44 PM by s...@smz.it:
>
> On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com 
>> :
>>
>> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>>
>> 6000 users? How you know that?
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover says:
>
> "Objects with this key were last edited by 2 025 different users."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
> What answers completely different question (it is possible that
> tag was added by 200 users and then other people edited objects
> with it).

... and that doesn't change things very much: it means that even if only 200 
(or 20) users have originally added those tags, 2025 users who have last edited 
those objects have somehow agreed with the tag being there, which I think is 
the important thing and probably that's why Taginfo exposes that statistic.


> Though given that even this value is so low makes 6000
> people adding this tag even less likely.


As you have probably seen Peter has amended the number (which initially was 
little a bit "optimistic") to something very comparable.

Cheers,

Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 23:04, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> I expanded a bit
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features
>

Thanks - so first step would be a new thread "Deprecate shop=fashion &
shop=boutique", linking to the several threads that have discussed this
over the last few weeks, so that everything is together in one place,
laying out the arguments & suggestions?

I'll start that shortly!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 10:28 PM by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:

> Le 11.03.19 à 21:36, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>
>> Mar 11, 2019, 8:58 PM by >> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>  Le 11.03.19 à 19:27, Christoph Hormann a écrit :
>>
>>  we map positively what verifiably exists
>>
>>
>>  with different imagery, it is possible to verify:
>>  - that an old one shows trees: old:landcover=trees
>>  - that a more recent one shows no trees. landcover=xyz landuse=farmland
>>
>> We do not map what was in the past and disappeared.
>>
>
> who is we ? check taginfo for ex 288k old_name or some lifecycle prefix
> if some users keep old name, I see no issue to keep the old cover in 
> addition to the new one.
>
old_name is OK - it is for name that is older/outdated but still in use among
some people

The only case where it is a bit OK is for recently changed features
(note="cycleway tagged here is not yet visible on aerial images"
or note-"house visible on aerial images is demolished as of 2019-03").
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 11:38 PM by s...@smz.it:

> On 2019-03-11 18:47, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> Mar 11, 2019, 6:44 PM by >> s...@smz.it >> :
>>
>>> On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz  Konieczny wrote:
>>>
 Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by  pelder...@gmail.com 
  :

> you can use landcover, it has about 160Kuses now by 6000 
> users
>
 6000 users? How you know that?

>>>
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover 
>>> >>
>>>
>>> ">>> Objects with this key were last edited by 2 025different 
>>> users."
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Sergio
>>>
>>>
>> What answers completelydifferent question (it is possible that 
>> tag was added by 200 users andthen other people edited objects 
>> with it).
>>
>
> ... and that doesn't change things very much: it means that even  if only 
> 200 (or 20) users have originally added those tags, 2025  users who have 
> last edited those objects have somehow agreed with  the tag being there, 
> which I think is the important thing and  probably that's why Taginfo 
> exposes that statistic.
>
>
"2000 users" and "2000 people not disliking it enough to remove all noticed 
instances"
is a bit different.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-12 00:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Mar 11, 2019, 11:38 PM by s...@smz.it:
>
> On 2019-03-11 18:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> Mar 11, 2019, 6:44 PM by s...@smz.it :
>>
>> On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com 
>>> :
>>>
>>> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users
>>>
>>> 6000 users? How you know that?
>>
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover says:
>>
>> "Objects with this key were last edited by 2 025 different users."
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sergio
>>
>> What answers completely different question (it is possible that
>> tag was added by 200 users and then other people edited objects
>> with it).
>
> ... and that doesn't change things very much: it means that even if only 
> 200 (or 20) users have originally added those tags, 2025 users who have last 
> edited those objects have somehow agreed with the tag being there, which I 
> think is the important thing and probably that's why Taginfo exposes that 
> statistic.
>
> "2000 users" and "2000 people not disliking it enough to remove all noticed 
> instances"
> is a bit different.

Right



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 11, 2019, 11:37 PM by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 23:04, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>> I expanded a bit 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features 
>> 
>>
>
> Thanks - so first step would be a new thread "Deprecate shop=fashion & 
> shop=boutique", linking to the several threads that have discussed this over 
> the last few weeks, so that everything is together in one place, laying out 
> the arguments & suggestions?
>
> I'll start that shortly!
>
Note this thread - "discouraging shop=fashion" created exactly to check 
whatever there
are some good reasons for its presence and whatever anybody will protest.

Next step is probably to research situation and propose changes on issue 
trackers of 
JOSM / iD / Osmose / etc

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

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 23:29 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>> Looking again, there is a category for this with "women;men;children
>> "
>> 242 times used, "women;men" even has 489. "fashion" is also present with
>> 184 uses (0,9%).
>>
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
>>
>
> & there's also myriads of men;women;children, women;children;men,
> women;babies;children & every other possible combination you could ever
> imagine (or create by a typo!)
>


yes, these exist as possibilities, but in the real world people use
"women;men" and "women;men;children". The other combinations are in low
numbers.




> Yeah, 230k shop=clothes but only 20k of all "types" of clothes combined,
> then 7000 =fashion & 15000 =boutique, but from the comments here, you have
> to wonder how many of those "boutiques" are actually selling high-level
> (very expensive!) clothing?
>


Not sure what you expect from "boutique". There are shops where a sweat
shirt is 1000 Euros and others where it is 100. Both may be "boutiques" but
the price differences are significant to most of us ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 11 March 2019, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Sorry, 2000.

IIRC the saying is "two wrongs does not make a right".

Original use of tags with the landcover key, that is mappers creating a 
new geometry with a landcover tag, is as follows (based on data from 
2019-02-28):

72848 ways/relations (more of half of these created in organized mapping 
with tagging not being the free choice of the mapper)
1310 different users
494 of which have used the key exactly once (this, i.e. that about 1/3 
to half of the genuine active users of a tag have only used it once is 
pretty standard but still this has to be kept in mind when 
contemplating such numbers)

The reason why taginfo reports only the number of users who have last 
touched features with this key is not because this is particularly 
meaningful information but because this can be counted quite easily 
when processing a planet file (which is what taginfo does on a daily 
basis) while numbers on active users (i.e. who maps features with a tag 
or who adds a tag to features) can only be determined from the history.

I can highly recommend Frederik's talk on the matter of OSM statistics 
which discusses this in detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0KuvkbvfQ

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Sergio Manzi]

Thanks for the numbers, for explaining and for the link, Christoph. Apreciated!

Sergio


On 2019-03-12 00:19, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 11 March 2019, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Sorry, 2000.
> IIRC the saying is "two wrongs does not make a right".
>
> Original use of tags with the landcover key, that is mappers creating a 
> new geometry with a landcover tag, is as follows (based on data from 
> 2019-02-28):
>
> 72848 ways/relations (more of half of these created in organized mapping 
> with tagging not being the free choice of the mapper)
> 1310 different users
> 494 of which have used the key exactly once (this, i.e. that about 1/3 
> to half of the genuine active users of a tag have only used it once is 
> pretty standard but still this has to be kept in mind when 
> contemplating such numbers)
>
> The reason why taginfo reports only the number of users who have last 
> touched features with this key is not because this is particularly 
> meaningful information but because this can be counted quite easily 
> when processing a planet file (which is what taginfo does on a daily 
> basis) while numbers on active users (i.e. who maps features with a tag 
> or who adds a tag to features) can only be determined from the history.
>
> I can highly recommend Frederik's talk on the matter of OSM statistics 
> which discusses this in detail:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0KuvkbvfQ
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Warin]

On 12/03/19 02:32, Peter Elderson wrote:
you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users, but 
you should know that

a. landcover is not currently rendered by OSM Carto.
b. THe proposal states that "All areas in the landcover features 
ofnatural =*will be 
transfered tolandcover 
=*. ...The 
tagslanduse =grass 
,landuse 
=forest 
andlanduse 
=railway 
will be 
transfered tolandcover 
=*." This is 
certainly not going to happen any time soon.


And it is incorrect. landuse=railway is a use of the land, it does not 
indicate a land cover.




If you decide to use landcover for existing area's, use it in addition 
to current mapping. For instance, if you replace landuse=grass with 
landcover=grass, or natural=wood with landcover=trees, most renderings 
suddenly will show these areas as grey. I would not recommend that, in 
fact you'll get a storm of protest! So in these cases, you use 
landcover in addition to landuse, and when landcover gets rendered 
(which I'm sure it will, some time) you can alter landuse without 
greying the map.

Not all present landuse tags are landcovers.


To add patches of trees and grass in an area with landuse=residential, 
industrial or leisure, you can use landcover, though it will not yet 
show op on OSM Carto.


Some of the tags relevant when mapping land covers are the keys 
natural=*, landcover=*, building=*, sub keys surface=* and the one value 
landcover=grass.
The landuse=residential, industrial or leisure are not relevant to land 
cover as they may have different land covers within their boundaries.


Also, major editors allow entering landcover, but have no special 
support for landcover tags.


Of course, if you make your own map style for the project, you can 
make landcover show up, just remember that the standard OSM Carto map 
does not.



Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 11 mrt. 2019 om 15:16 schreef Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>>:


Hi all,

I’m Lorenzo, the vice-president of PoliMappers, the YouthMappers
chapter in Politecnico di Milano, we are going to organize a
mapathon in Milan talking about deforestation, in collaboration
with the Semillero Geolab UdeA, a Colombian chapter of YouthMappers.

We will would like to map land-cover in an area near the Amazonian
forest, the mappers will be people that have few experience in
mapping so we are thinking to map basic elements in landuse and we
found this proposal [1] on map basic elements.

The idea was to map: bareland, artificial surface and forest.

Should be a good idea to map following this idea?

Thanks for all the possible answer.

Best regards,
Lorenzo Stucchi


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rudolf/draft_landcover

___
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] Mapping deforestation

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> “We will would like to map land cover in an area near the Amazonian
forest”

I’d recommend that you start by mapping the existing forested areas with
natural=wood or landuse=forest, and areas of water with natural=water and
water=lake / =river, or natural=wetland for swamps, marshes, mangroves,
bogs, etc.

If you can clearly identify other types of vegetation (from aerial imagery,
I assume?) there are several specific tags that can be used. You should not
tag something non-specific like “clearing” or “bare ground”.

Natural=scrub is used for areas mainly covered shrubs or bushes, eg woody
plants about 1m to 3m in height, natura=heath is for dwarf shrubs (probably
only found in the high Andes on Colombia), natural=grassland can be used
for alpine areas above the treeline (though these may also be heath or
wetland=bog). Areas of rocky land without vegetation can be
natural=bare_rock, =sand, =scree, =shingle

The most relevant tags for landcover with heavy human use in Colombia might
be landuse=orchard for palm oil, banana, and coffee plantations,
landuse=farmland for seasonal or annual crops, landuse=meadow for pasture
and hay fields, landuse=residential / =industrial for developed areas with
houses / industry.

The idea should be to map as specifically as possible. If you are not
certain of the type of vegetation or landuse for a certain area, then leave
that place untagged for now. Someday a local person can add the proper
tagging by visiting that place in person.

Re: the landcover tags. These have not been approved by the community,
though there is a small, vocal minority that wants to use them instead of
the established tags that start with landuse= and natural=. I would not use
these, because there are much more widely used equivalents that are
approved or in use for many years.

Don’t use landcover=trees; use natural=wood or landuse=forest.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Peter Elderson]

Organized mapping is ok mapping. Mapping of landcover has been pretty decent 
and sensible overall, not a bunch of fanatics, no data destruction. I’ve 
described current mapping practice for landcover=grass and landcover=trees. It 
covers most of the usage including the Paraguay mapping project. 

It’s a movement, not a conspiracy.  It’s growing despite not being rendered. 

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 12 mrt. 2019 om 00:19 heeft Christoph Hormann  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Monday 11 March 2019, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Sorry, 2000.
> 
> IIRC the saying is "two wrongs does not make a right".
> 
> Original use of tags with the landcover key, that is mappers creating a 
> new geometry with a landcover tag, is as follows (based on data from 
> 2019-02-28):
> 
> 72848 ways/relations (more of half of these created in organized mapping 
> with tagging not being the free choice of the mapper)
> 1310 different users
> 494 of which have used the key exactly once (this, i.e. that about 1/3 
> to half of the genuine active users of a tag have only used it once is 
> pretty standard but still this has to be kept in mind when 
> contemplating such numbers)
> 
> The reason why taginfo reports only the number of users who have last 
> touched features with this key is not because this is particularly 
> meaningful information but because this can be counted quite easily 
> when processing a planet file (which is what taginfo does on a daily 
> basis) while numbers on active users (i.e. who maps features with a tag 
> or who adds a tag to features) can only be determined from the history.
> 
> I can highly recommend Frederik's talk on the matter of OSM statistics 
> which discusses this in detail:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0KuvkbvfQ
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> 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] Mapping deforestation

[Warin]

On 12/03/19 10:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> “We will would like to map land cover in an area near the Amazonian 
forest”


I’d recommend that you start by mapping the existing forested areas 
with natural=wood or landuse=forest,
From aerial imagery I would recommend you  do not use landuse=forest as 
it cannot be determined if the area has some human use to the tress. Use 
natural=wood and if you desire landcover=trees.
and areas of water with natural=water and water=lake / =river, or 
natural=wetland for swamps, marshes, mangroves, bogs, etc.


If you can clearly identify other types of vegetation (from aerial 
imagery, I assume?) there are several specific tags that can be used. 
You should not tag something non-specific like “clearing” or “bare 
ground”.


Natural=scrub is used for areas mainly covered shrubs or bushes, eg 
woody plants about 1m to 3m in height, natura=heath is for dwarf 
shrubs (probably only found in the high Andes on Colombia), 
natural=grassland can be used for alpine areas above the treeline 
(though these may also be heath or wetland=bog). Areas of rocky land 
without vegetation can be natural=bare_rock, =sand, =scree, =shingle


The most relevant tags for landcover with heavy human use in Colombia 
might be landuse=orchard for palm oil, banana, and coffee plantations, 
landuse=farmland for seasonal or annual crops, landuse=meadow for 
pasture and hay fields, landuse=residential / =industrial for 
developed areas with houses / industry.


The idea should be to map as specifically as possible. If you are not 
certain of the type of vegetation or landuse for a certain area, then 
leave that place untagged for now. Someday a local person can add the 
proper tagging by visiting that place in person.


Re: the landcover tags. These have not been approved by the community, 
though there is a small, vocal minority that wants to use them instead 
of the established tags that start with landuse= and natural=. I would 
not use these, because there are much more widely used equivalents 
that are approved or in use for many years.


Don’t use landcover=trees; use natural=wood or landuse=forest.


There is nothing wrong with dual tagging...  use both natural=wood and 
landcover=trees, for example of a tree area, indicates what is there in 
as clear a manner as possible.


Nit picking - landuse=* should only be used to indicate the human use of 
the land, it should not indicate a land cover.


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[marc marc]

Le 11.03.19 à 23:57, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Mar 11, 2019, 10:28 PM by marc_marc:
> Le 11.03.19 à 21:36, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Mar 11, 2019, 8:58 PM by marc_marc_irc:
> Le 11.03.19 à 19:27, Christoph Hormann a écrit :
> 
> we map positively what verifiably exists
> 
>   with different imagery, it is possible to verify:
>   - that an old one shows trees: old:landcover=trees
>   - that a more recent one shows no trees. landcover=xyz
>   landuse=farmland
> 
> We do not map what was in the past and disappeared.
> 
> 
>   who is we ? check taginfo for ex 288k old_name or some lifecycle prefix
>   if some users keep old name, I see no issue to keep the old cover in
>   addition to the new one.
> 
> old_name is OK - it is for name that is older/outdated but still in use 
> among some people

"old_name only for name still in use" is your vision of things,
I doubt it's the common meaning.
When one shop is replaced by another, I always keep the old name with 
old_name even if no one else uses it to designate the new store. the 
primary purpose is to prevent someone from re-encoding the old store 
with an older source than mine.

> The only case where it is a bit OK is for recently changed features
> (note="cycleway tagged here is not yet visible on aerial images"
> or note-"house visible on aerial images is demolished as of 2019-03").

some imagery takes a decade to update in some parts of the world.
some deforestation is not that long old.
so there's no real difference with your demolished house.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

[John Willis via Tagging]

I understand about tunnel=building_passage for ways that pass through 
structures, but there are some objects that roads go "under", similar to 
bridges, but are not bridge-like items. 

In my local area, there are two large torii (shinto gates) that public roads 
pass through the center of. They are ~ 10m tall and about 10m wide, and the 
base poles are on their own landuse - but the public road and sidewalk go 
through the m. 

The gate is a monument, and I mapped it as a building=yes & man_made=torii . I 
mapped the road and sidewalk as tunnels through it, but that seems wrong. It is 
a large object that deserves to be mapped, but I am unsure how to do it right. 

I assume this comes up with footpaths that go through smaller torii, archways, 
trellis’, and other “overhead” structures, but often times those structures are 
unmapped.  

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676152533

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

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:08 PM John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> I understand about tunnel=building_passage for ways that pass through 
> structures, but there are some objects that roads go "under", similar to 
> bridges, but are not bridge-like items.
>
> In my local area, there are two large torii (shinto gates) that public roads 
> pass through the center of. They are ~ 10m tall and about 10m wide, and the 
> base poles are on their own landuse - but the public road and sidewalk go 
> through the m.
>
> The gate is a monument, and I mapped it as a building=yes & man_made=torii . 
> I mapped the road and sidewalk as tunnels through it, but that seems wrong. 
> It is a large object that deserves to be mapped, but I am unsure how to do it 
> right.
>
> I assume this comes up with footpaths that go through smaller torii, 
> archways, trellis’, and other “overhead” structures, but often times those 
> structures are unmapped.

Map the entire footprint of the torii, and then map the section of the
road that passes under with covered=yes? That's what I've done for at
least one road (that passes under a building that is buit as a bridge
over a ravine) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/478979357 . It
appears to render sensibly, and the tagging makes sense to me.

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

[Tagging] Tagging disputed boundaries

[Nathaniel V. Kelso]

Hi fellow Taggers,

Just a friendly heads up I've started to tag more disputed administrative
boundary lines in OpenStreetMap with tags for disputed=yes (but will leave
the existing dispute=yes alone), adding disputed_by=* on disputed ways, and
adding claimed_by=* on their relations to support multiple points-of-view.
This is compatible with existing data, and a subset of the more complicated
tagging proposals made on this list in December of last year.

I posted a diary entry about this sprint here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nvk/diary/47890

So far I've limited editing to existing features (like in Kashmir, Crimea,
Western Sahara), but there actually aren't that may so I may start adding
missing ones later this month.

If you have any questions please let me know, and if you want to help out
let's coordinate :)

Cheers,

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

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Marc Gemis]

Before deprecating the shop=fashion tag, shouldn't we reach out to the
mappers that use shop=fashion ?

Maybe they have a lot more domain knowledge than the people on this
mailing list and can explain why they used shop=fashion and not
shop=clothes; clothes=...

(you know diversity and white privileged men and things)

m.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:11 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 23:29 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> :
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Looking again, there is a category for this with "women;men;children" 242 
>>> times used, "women;men" even has 489. "fashion" is also present with 184 
>>> uses (0,9%).
>>
>>
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
>>
>>
>> & there's also myriads of men;women;children, women;children;men, 
>> women;babies;children & every other possible combination you could ever 
>> imagine (or create by a typo!)
>
>
>
> yes, these exist as possibilities, but in the real world people use 
> "women;men" and "women;men;children". The other combinations are in low 
> numbers.
>
>
>
>>
>> Yeah, 230k shop=clothes but only 20k of all "types" of clothes combined, 
>> then 7000 =fashion & 15000 =boutique, but from the comments here, you have 
>> to wonder how many of those "boutiques" are actually selling high-level 
>> (very expensive!) clothing?
>
>
>
> Not sure what you expect from "boutique". There are shops where a sweat shirt 
> is 1000 Euros and others where it is 100. Both may be "boutiques" but the 
> price differences are significant to most of us ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

[Peter Elderson]

Key:landcoverTags: landcover=trees & landcover=grassUsage: The landcover
key is used to describe what covers the land. Currently, the most used
values are trees and grass. What is tagged: A landcover tag is used to map
a physical area of (currently) grass or trees in two cases:

   1. when the human use of the land is not known, e.g. an area of grass
   not visibly dedicated to any purpose, or
   2. when landcover differs from the implied landcover of the underlying
   landuse, eg a grass clearing within a forest, or patches of trees within an
   industrial, residential or military area.



In this context, “underlying landuse” includes other tags which represent
types of landuse such as leisure=park.

Combination of landuse and landcover: Area features can have both landuse
and landcover tags. The landuse indicates what the land is used for; the
landcover indicates what it is covered with.

Where landuse implies a landcover and the above two use cases are not
applicable or foreseen, adding landcover is redundant.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 12 mrt. 2019 om 01:02 schreef Peter Elderson :

> Organized mapping is ok mapping. Mapping of landcover has been pretty
> decent and sensible overall, not a bunch of fanatics, no data destruction.
> I’ve described current mapping practice for landcover=grass and
> landcover=trees. It covers most of the usage including the Paraguay mapping
> project.
>
> It’s a movement, not a conspiracy.  It’s growing despite not being
> rendered.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> > Op 12 mrt. 2019 om 00:19 heeft Christoph Hormann  het
> volgende geschreven:
> >
> >> On Monday 11 March 2019, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >> Sorry, 2000.
> >
> > IIRC the saying is "two wrongs does not make a right".
> >
> > Original use of tags with the landcover key, that is mappers creating a
> > new geometry with a landcover tag, is as follows (based on data from
> > 2019-02-28):
> >
> > 72848 ways/relations (more of half of these created in organized mapping
> > with tagging not being the free choice of the mapper)
> > 1310 different users
> > 494 of which have used the key exactly once (this, i.e. that about 1/3
> > to half of the genuine active users of a tag have only used it once is
> > pretty standard but still this has to be kept in mind when
> > contemplating such numbers)
> >
> > The reason why taginfo reports only the number of users who have last
> > touched features with this key is not because this is particularly
> > meaningful information but because this can be counted quite easily
> > when processing a planet file (which is what taginfo does on a daily
> > basis) while numbers on active users (i.e. who maps features with a tag
> > or who adds a tag to features) can only be determined from the history.
> >
> > I can highly recommend Frederik's talk on the matter of OSM statistics
> > which discusses this in detail:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0KuvkbvfQ
> >
> > --
> > Christoph Hormann
> > http://www.imagico.de/
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging