Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I originally thought that just using the existing tag natural=plateau
was easiest, but a couple people have been in favor of using 2 new
tags.

1) natural=butte for hills with small flat tops surrounded by cliffs,
where the width of the flat area is less than the height of the hill.
Wikipedia: " an isolated hill with steep, often vertical sides and a
small, relatively flat top" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butte)
These buttes in Monument Valley are a very famous example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monument_Valley,_late_afternoon.jpg
Courthouse butte in Sedona:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Butte_pdphoto_roadtrip_24_bg_021604.jpg

2) natural=mesa for mountains and hills with flat tops surrounded by
cliffs, where the width of the flat tableland is greater than the
height.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa "an elevated area of land with
a flat top and sides that are usually steep cliffs"
Eg these mesas in Canyonlands National Park, Utah:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IslandInTheSky.JPG
Lower Table Rock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lower_Table_Rock_from_the_south.jpg

These definitions are found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butte -
"geographers use the rule of thumb that a mesa has a top that is wider
than its height, while a butte has a top that is narrower than its
height" (citing
http://www.scienceclarified.com/landforms/Faults-to-Mountains/Mesa-and-Butte.html
as a source)

This would leave natural=plateau for any other "area of a highland,
usually consisting of relatively flat terrain, that is raised
significantly above the surrounding area, often with one or more sides
with steep slopes", including large highlands that are less well
defined, and small plateaus that lack the cliffs or steep slopes on
all sides that define a mesa or butte.

Thus mesas and buttes could be mapped as nodes or areas, but plateaus
could only be mapped as nodes.

Thoughts?


On 4/18/19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 19:11, Mark Wagner  wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think there's an English English term for them -- England
>> barely has any topographical relief at all.  They even had to import
>> "mountain" from the French.
>
>
> The UK does have some topographical relief but not any plateaus that I can
> think of.  However,
> we Brits are familiar with the word - we stole various parts of the world
> from indigenous
> inhabitants which had that sort of topography.
>
> Unless there's something I'm missing, we're going to need to pick an
>> English import
>> from one of the countries that does have plateaus, mesas, or buttes.
>>
>
> We may have to use all of those words.  From looking at the three relevant
> articles on
> Wikipedia, it appears that mesas are larger than buttes and plateaus are
> larger than mesas.
> Tableland is a synonym of plateau.  I'd say natural=plateau/mesa/butte.
> But I expect there will
> be many people who disagree with that - there are as many opinions on this
> list as there
> are subscribers.
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:55 AM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> is otherwise verifiable of course.  For larger things mapping should
> focus on locally mapping locally surveyable constituent parts or
> aspects of the feature but i would be very careful with creating
> features for them as a whole because this very often drifts from the
> OSM idea of mapping local knowledge to a Wikipedia-like recording of
> social conventions.

I doubt very much that you're saying what you intended here.

It comes across as saying, for instance, that lakes too big to map on
the ground in a single day should not be mapped, or should not be
named. I think that making large waterbodies disappear would be
ridiculous.

Moreover, if you've mapped something on the ground, what difference
does it make how long it took?  It took me a number of trips over many
days to gather the GPS tracks that were consolidated into
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650. (It was initially
planned as a single trip with two stops for resupply, but the best
laid plans gang aft agley.) On one of those trips I was in the field
for six days straight, and was at times thirty km from the nearest
drivable road. Of course the relation has many constituent ways,
because of tagging for things like bridge=yes or ford=yes, changes of
surface=*, brief stretches where the trail follows a road, and similar
changes. Moreover, I intentionally broke the ways up so as not to have
thousands of nodes on any signle way. But on the ground, the relation
represents a single trail. It has the same name for its entire length
(and is signed where it shares the way with a highway). Is it less
worthy of mapping because in order to order to map one section, I had
to lug enough batteries to keep my GPS going (and enough food to keep
Kevin going) for six days?

Surely you're not arguing that I can't have 'local knowledge' of it
when I've personally had my literal boots on the literal ground for
every step of the way?

I understand that there are fairly severe technological issues at
present, where a plethora of enormous multipolygons breaks some of the
software tools. For now, therefore, I refrain from mapping anything
like the Long Island Sound or the Red Sea as areas, even though I
believe that competent label placement in some renderings will require
that eventually. Similarly, I'm not about to go mapping enormous
linear features or area features for the Mogollon Plateau, the
Catskill Mountains, or the Great Dismal Swamp, The software will catch
up in time, and in the meantime I'll try to be a good neighbour and
not break things; I can experiment on my own database with my own
toolchain. But some large features are unavoidable: I'm not giving up
Lake Champlain or the Adirondack Park just because of their immense
size.

I understand that relations with a vast number of members are also
problematic, which is why I introduced a further level of breakdown
into sections on the not-quite-finished project to map
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 .  I try to be a good
citizen with large objects, but there are large definite objects in
the field, and a rule like "no bigger than a day's walk" is going to
leave us with an urban-only map.

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

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

[John Willis via Tagging]

> 
> On Apr 17, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> I reacted to the comparison with a bridge. 
> I guess there will be no consensus.
> 
> Vr gr Peter Elderson


it follows the current footway=crossing + crossing=*  tagging scheme, so 
instead of:

highway=footway
footway=crossing
crossing=marked

it is:

highway=cycleway
cycleway=crossing
crossing=marked

Now, similar to bridge=*, it would be easier to say:

highway=cycleway
crossing=marked

But there is already a trillion uses of the footway scheme and 12 thousand uses 
of the cycleway=crossing, so using cycleway=crossing (as it is in-use and 
matches footway) is an acceptable compromise. 


Jovbw. 



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

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[John Willis via Tagging]

The only place I remember using locality is where a new very large (roughly 
5x5KM)  feature has been created by completely removing the original hamlet and 
building a very large flood control feature made of several individually named 
features, which also contain parks, golf courses, airstrips and commercial 
works. together, they make up a named place that is not able to be defined as a 
city of any type, nor one of the individual features. it is much larger than 
the park, the reservoir, the flood control basins, the cycling roads, the 
camping and fishing areas, the rice field art. 

it is the Watarase flood control area. 

someone tried to map it as a village and I changed it to locality. the mapping 
method is probably wrong, but I think the sprit of Locality is correct. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/482421468#map=13/36.2349/139.6882

all the examples you previously gave is for when an area’s name grows beyond 
the feature that named it - but it should still be named by that thing. 

but when the thing is gone, (a rail line stop that is no longer there), or is a 
collection of larger items that get named like a city or a village - yet have 
zero residents - seems like a good use for locality to me. 


Javbw

> On Apr 18, 2019, at 3:33 AM, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:19:52 +0900
> Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
>> I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places
>> in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality
>> is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific
>> tag.
> 
>> ...
> 
>> Out of the remaining 47 nodes, several have names that suggest they
>> should have other tags:
>> - 8 are named “* Beach” (=> natural=beach)
>> - 2 “* Point” (natural=cape or natural=peninsula)
>> - 2 road junctions: “Four Corners” and “Old Saddle Road Junction”
>> (highway=junction)
>> - 1 may be a lake (“Green Lake”) (natural=water water=lake)
> 
> I checked the local situation, and found the following:
> 
> Spring Valley: is it a valley?  No, it's a former rural railway stop.
> Hutton Settlement: is it a hamlet?  No, it's an orphanage.
> Hazelwood: is it a forest?  No, it's a former hamlet.
> Ohio Junction: Is it a highway junction?  No, it's where the
> century-abandoned Ohio Match railway line met what is now the Union
> Pacific railway line.
> 
> My point is that you can't tell what sort of thing something is from
> its name (or worse, from a translation of its name).
> 
> -- 
> Mark
> 
> ___
> 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] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Warin]

On 18/04/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:




But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no 
physical presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and 
current” feature that is appropriate for OSM rather than a historical 
map.


If the name is still in present use then it belongs in OSM, even if 
there is no physical presence on the ground people still use the name to 
define the place.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

[Warin]

On 18/04/19 00:02, Christoph Hormann wrote:

On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I believe many people are using natural=peak to add the name of
plateaus / mesas / tablelands.

Yes, that is definitely the case for buttes and small mesas - but then
again these are features that can be verifiably mapped based on local
knowledge.  However using a generic natural=plateau tag which is then
inevitably used by some mappers to cargo cult polygons around just
about any area of land elevated in some way relative to its surrounding
is not a good idea.


There are also 'points' and 'heads' to name a few other landforms missing in 
OSM.

To say that they should not be mapped is to deny there existence.
It is not unusual to look for these things .. OSM failure to map them leads to 
other sources being used.

If large features are not to be mapped in OSM then most countries will have to 
be removed. :P




I see nothing wrong with creating natural=butte and natural=mesa with
appropriately tight definitions:  Both being surrounded on all sides by
cliffs or very steep slopes, buttes with a height larger than width and
mesas with a flat top (i.e. height variation across the top being
significantly smaller than the total height).




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

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I checked the local situation, and found the following:
>
> Spring Valley: is it a valley?  No, it's a former rural railway stop.


It’s not also a valley? It’s common for “XXX Valley” to be 3 related
features which can be mapped with 2 or 3 nodes if they are not exactly
centered at the same place: 1) the name and center of a landform
2) the name and center of a settlement or abandoned settlement and 3) the
name and location of a train station.

abandoned:railway=station would work if there is still physical remains of
the station.

Hutton Settlement: is it a hamlet?  No, it's an orphanage.


If it is still an orphanage there is amenity=social_facility but perhaps it
is an abandoned:amenity or repurposed? A residential institution could also
be a place=isolated_dwelling if it is not part of a larger settlement

Hazelwood: is it a forest?  No, it's a former hamlet.


If there are still buildings or abandoned infrastructure it could be an
abandoned:place=hamlet

Ohio Junction: Is it a highway junction?  No, it's where the
> century-abandoned Ohio Match railway line met what is now the Union
> Pacific railway line.


So abandoned:railway=junction of there is still physical evidence? Though
perhaps not after 100 years

>
> My point is that you can't tell what sort of thing something is from
> its name (or worse, from a translation of its name


Sure, that’s why I didn’t attempt to re-tag any of the objects that I
reviewed. Only local mappers are going to be able to do this.

But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no physical
presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and current” feature
that is appropriate for OSM rather than a historical map.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Apr 2019, at 11:34, Sven Geggus  wrote:
> 
> Your suggestion would not allow for tagging a site like this:
> tourism=camp_site
> camp_site=camp_pitch


This combination, with the semantics you have in mind, on the same object, 
would not be possible, on the other hand there would not be much need for 
mapping individual pitches if the whole site is just one “pitch” (not sure the 
word pitch applies in this case). 

And you may eventually be able to keep the exact same tagging but with 
different intended semantics (and basically the same meaning for the people who 
use the map): camp_pitch as subtype of camp site, not as a pitch object like 
tourism=camp_pitch

There are also other ways to express similar information. “capacity” is not 
very diffuse yet (3000), but seems suitable to get an idea how many fellow 
campers might be awaiting you, and is universally applicable.

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

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 17.04.2019 o 21:47, Mateusz Konieczny pisze:
> Apr 17, 2019, 7:34 PM by geodes...@gmail.com:
>
> If everyone on Earth joined OSM and limited their mapping
> to their own local knowledge using that rule of thumb, our map
> would look like this :-)   http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj
>
Nice and funny illustration of OSM problems with global and remote
natural areas. How did you create it?


> Nobody proposed ban on mapping things far away from your place of
> residence.


That would probably only add to this picture some spots (remote
settlements and touristic attractions) and thin lines (along routes).
And probably only spots, if single day would be the limit.

OSM started as a very local enterprise, but the world is much wider, so
we should rethink how to deal with them, because the world is not gonna
shrink...


-- 
"I see dead people" [Sixth Sense]

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

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 03:35, Michael Patrick  wrote:

> our map would look like this :-)   http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj
>

That's an amazing image, thanks Michael.

I take it that's the home location of all OSM contributors?

I'm surprised that India & especially China (where I thought OSM was
banned?) are covered so well, & also a bit surprised that Australia & NZ
have dropped back into the Ocean - I thought there were a few more of us
than that? - us few seem to have done a pretty good job then!

(cc'ed to AU list for interest's sake :-))

Thanks

Graeme



> Also, in regard to how 'sharp' the boundaries some of these
> very large features are, if a person has a passing knowledge
> of 'road cut' geology and mineralogy, they are incredibly
> distinct, especially in the American Southwest. They are
> also identifiable from DEM/DSM analysis, sometimes as
> easily as coloring the elevation.
>
> I somewhat agree that 'if' it was at all to go into OSM,
> there would be a special interest group that would
> ride herd on a specialized name space. These geologic
> regions are essentially 'historical' features, some on
> the order of a billion years :-)
>
> Michael
> ___
> 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] Stop the large feature madness

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 17, 2019, 7:34 PM by geodes...@gmail.com:

> > ... As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be 
> > surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is 
> > usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it 
> > is otherwise verifiable of course.  ... 
>
> If everyone on Earth joined OSM and limited their mapping 
> to their own local knowledge using that rule of thumb, our map 
> would look like this :-)   > http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj 
>
Nobody proposed ban on mapping things far away from your place of residence. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:19:52 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places
> in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality
> is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific
> tag.

>...

> Out of the remaining 47 nodes, several have names that suggest they
> should have other tags:
> - 8 are named “* Beach” (=> natural=beach)
> - 2 “* Point” (natural=cape or natural=peninsula)
> - 2 road junctions: “Four Corners” and “Old Saddle Road Junction”
> (highway=junction)
> - 1 may be a lake (“Green Lake”) (natural=water water=lake)

I checked the local situation, and found the following:

Spring Valley: is it a valley?  No, it's a former rural railway stop.
Hutton Settlement: is it a hamlet?  No, it's an orphanage.
Hazelwood: is it a forest?  No, it's a former hamlet.
Ohio Junction: Is it a highway junction?  No, it's where the
century-abandoned Ohio Match railway line met what is now the Union
Pacific railway line.

My point is that you can't tell what sort of thing something is from
its name (or worse, from a translation of its name).

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 19:11, Mark Wagner  wrote:

>
> I don't think there's an English English term for them -- England
> barely has any topographical relief at all.  They even had to import
> "mountain" from the French.


The UK does have some topographical relief but not any plateaus that I can
think of.  However,
we Brits are familiar with the word - we stole various parts of the world
from indigenous
inhabitants which had that sort of topography.

Unless there's something I'm missing, we're going to need to pick an
> English import
> from one of the countries that does have plateaus, mesas, or buttes.
>

We may have to use all of those words.  From looking at the three relevant
articles on
Wikipedia, it appears that mesas are larger than buttes and plateaus are
larger than mesas.
Tableland is a synonym of plateau.  I'd say natural=plateau/mesa/butte.
But I expect there will
be many people who disagree with that - there are as many opinions on this
list as there
are subscribers.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:44:33 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 17. Apr 2019, at 06:55, Joseph Eisenberg
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > I searched taginfo for "tableland", "table_land", "table-land",
> > "plateau" and "mesa".
> > 
> > There are 94 natural=plateau and 3 natural=mesa.
> > I found no uses of natural=table or table_land or tableland or
> > tableland  
> 
> 
> there are also 52 natural=plain and no *=high_plain nor * table_mount
> or flat-top_mount
> 
> Would you see a tableland different from table_mount or synonymous?
> After all these are different words.
> 
> Maybe there is overlap?
> 
> Generally I would prefer to use an English English term, rather than
> a Spanish or French English term.

I don't think there's an English English term for them -- England
barely has any topographical relief at all.  They even had to import
"mountain" from the French.  Unless there's something I'm missing,
we're going to need to pick an English import from one of the countries
that does have plateaus, mesas, or buttes.

-- 
Mark

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

[Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

[Michael Patrick]

> ... As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> is otherwise verifiable of course.  ...

If everyone on Earth joined OSM and limited their mapping
to their own local knowledge using that rule of thumb, our map
would look like this :-)   http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj

Also, in regard to how 'sharp' the boundaries some of these
very large features are, if a person has a passing knowledge
of 'road cut' geology and mineralogy, they are incredibly
distinct, especially in the American Southwest. They are
also identifiable from DEM/DSM analysis, sometimes as
easily as coloring the elevation.

I somewhat agree that 'if' it was at all to go into OSM,
there would be a special interest group that would
ride herd on a specialized name space. These geologic
regions are essentially 'historical' features, some on
the order of a billion years :-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Sven Geggus]

Tobias Wrede  wrote:

> So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic?

Mainly because the other type of tagging is the already established one and
there is no good reason for changing this.

The fact, that campsites with one pitch are not taggable is something I
would consider a minor issue.

Sven

-- 
/*
 * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-)
 */(taken from /usr/src/linux/lib/vsprintf.c)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 17.04.2019 um 13:32 schrieb marc marc:

Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit :

tourism=camp_site
camp_site=camp_pitch

which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_  exist.

indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking
parking=parking_space


Actually, your example Sven makes perfect sense exactly in the case 
where the camp site consists of one camp pitch. That's the usual 
interpretation of tags following the scheme A=B, B=C, e. g. 
tourism=information + information=board: an information board, 
highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled: an uncontrolled crossing, 
tourism=museum + museum=history: a history museum.


So under tourism=camp_site + camp_site=camp_pitch I would expect a (one) 
camp pitch camp site.


On the other hand parts of bigger things are often mapped by repeating 
the main tag, e. g. (copied from Marc):


a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space
a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch [...]

So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic?

Tobi

 



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

[Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Michael Patrick]

> I'm surprised that I can't find an established tag or wiki page for a
plateau, mesa, or tableland; an area of raised land that is flat on top:
... Is natural=plateau the best option? This sounds fine to me, as an
American English speaker, but I'd like to know if it's the best British
English option.

I don't think it's a question of ' British English'. In the early days of
geology as a science, many of the founding naturalists did assign
geomorphic feature names, of course first to those dominating their region.

If your context is to have some sort of globally consistent lexicon, the
three terms are distinct from one another, with some overlap between butte
and mesa.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F3-540-31060-6_240
and https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/3-540-31060-6_289
( from 'Geomorphology', 1968 ).

The local context is different, especially for names. i.e. the 'Turtle
Mountains' in North Dakota would barely be 'knolls' elsewhere in Alaska.:
See
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/86417/kettle-lakes-of-the-turtle-mountains
:
" In most American states, the Turtle Mountains—which rise 600 to 800 feet
(180 to 240 meters) above the surrounding plain—would be called hills. But
in North Dakota, one of the flattest
 states, people have a
habit of calling even relatively modest rises mountains. (In the past, the
U.S. Board of Geographic Names argued that mountains should have at least
1,000 feet (300 meters) of local relief to earn the designation, but the
group abandoned the argument for linguistic consistency in the 1970s.)"
Sometime the local label (name ) is strongly contradictory, the exact
opposite of the local landform - especially in the American Southwest as
homesick miners had a certain dark humour when they names places.

Since the petro-geologists have, by now, did at least a first pass on most
of the Earth's surface, it is fairly easy to use Google Scholar to discover
the actual geomorphic classification terms used for classifying land forms
in a particular area. There are also geologic maps sometimes available:
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/geologic-map-of-the-mount-spokane-quadrangle-spokane-county-washington-and-kootenai-and-bonner-

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret







Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[marc marc]

Le 17.04.19 à 15:30, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> Re [1] Grande Cariçaie
> If it were a type=multipolygon with leisure=nature_reserve, 
> it would be clear what feature this name refers to.

But that 'll make a leisure=nature_reserve into a leisure=nature_reserve
and it's wrong because "Grande Cariçaie" is not a nature reserve,
it's the name a group of several nature reserve.
Of course you can create a new tag with "member tag" + _group
that's what Markus try to avoid
next step : network=Grande Cariçaie ? maybe...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> I believe many people are using natural=peak to add the name of
> plateaus / mesas / tablelands.

Yes, that is definitely the case for buttes and small mesas - but then 
again these are features that can be verifiably mapped based on local 
knowledge.  However using a generic natural=plateau tag which is then 
inevitably used by some mappers to cargo cult polygons around just 
about any area of land elevated in some way relative to its surrounding 
is not a good idea.

I see nothing wrong with creating natural=butte and natural=mesa with 
appropriately tight definitions:  Both being surrounded on all sides by 
cliffs or very steep slopes, buttes with a height larger than width and 
mesas with a flat top (i.e. height variation across the top being 
significantly smaller than the total height).

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re [1] Grande Cariçaie
Looking at the relation, all I see is “type=group” and name=“Grande
Cariçaie”. If you load the members, you see that each is a way,
fortunately the names include “Reserve Naturalle” so that helps.

But how am I to know why this relation is? Its not a nature reserve or
protected area by itself? Where does the name come from, if it isn’t
an official protected area with some sort of shared administration?

If it were a type=multipolygon with leisure=nature_reserve, or a
boundary with protected_area, it would be clear what feature this name
refers to.

[2] Group of sculptures
I’ve seen sculpture gardens, which can be mapped as an area.
These sculptures are all in one row, so they could almost be mapped as
a linear way instead of as separate nodes.
But I agree that a relation type for a group of nodes could be useful
for a number of things, including art installations that are scattered
over an area and can’t be perfectly represented by a node, line or
area.
However, I would still like this to work like other relations and
ways: the tags need to be on the object (the relation). In this case,
when I open the relation all I see is a list of nodes, with no tags. I
have to select one of the nodes to find out that it's a sculpture,
then check all the others to see if they are they same.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:24 PM Markus  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 16:26, Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > > @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), I've
> > > already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone will push
> > > OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future.
> >
> > It will be very difficult to handle such relations in osm2pgsql, the
> > tool that is used to import the database for rendering, as long as the
> > group relation can include other relations, ways, and nodes in one
> > object.
> >
> > Is there any reason that lake groups cannot be tagged as multipolygon
> > relations? These are already handled by most database users, including
> > Openstreetmap-Carto.
>
> It's not just about groups of lakes. There are other groups, where the
> individual elements either have no name or individual names, for
> example this group of natural reserves [1] or this group of sculptures
> [2]. The group of sculptures consists of nodes, thus a multi-polygon
> relation doesn't work for it. And for other groups that could be
> mapped as multi-polygons (such as the group of natural reserves), this
> would mean that we would need new tags for about every existing tag
> (at least for about every tag that is used on areas).
>
> [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8856988
> [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8961321
>
> ___
> 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] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 23:04, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> ...These would actually be an example of a feature
> that does have a verifiable border, and could therefore be mapped as
> an area by following the top of the cliff all the way around, but I
> don't see any great benefit to doing all that work to copy the path of
> the natural=cliff, when a node at the center of the feature will do.
>

I would always see a node as just a temporary approach to map a plateau in
place of a closed way.

The advantage of a way is renders get a sense of size of the feature and
can decide at which zoom level to label it. It also helps for building
reverse geocoders so they can say you're on X plateau when inside the area.
Neither really possible with just a node.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I did not intend to encourage mappers to start adding giant
multipolygons for the Tibetan plateau or the Colorado Plateau. In fact
I'm doing my best to discourage mappers from adding non-verifiable,
huge areas to the database: see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3750

I asked about an appropriate tag for tablelands / mesas / plateaus
after finding that several place=locality nodes in Andorra are used to
map features named "Pla de *” (x2) and "Planell(s) *" (x3), both of
which are likely types of plateau, if I'm reading the Catalan
dictionary correctly. It would be nice if many of the place=locality
nodes could be updated to a more specific tag, and there didn't seem
to be anything that fit other than natural=plateau.

Personally, I don't plan to add any closed ways, let alone
multipolgyons, to map large plateaus, though I will check if the Table
Rocks near Medford OR are tagged correctly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_and_Lower_Table_Rock - tablelands
about 1 and 2 square miles in size with clearly defined borders
(cliffs) on all sides. These would actually be an example of a feature
that does have a verifiable border, and could therefore be mapped as
an area by following the top of the cliff all the way around, but I
don't see any great benefit to doing all that work to copy the path of
the natural=cliff, when a node at the center of the feature will do.

I believe many people are using natural=peak to add the name of
plateaus / mesas / tablelands. This may be acceptable for buttes,
where the flat top of the hill is small, but for a 1 or 2 kilometer
width plateau there may be several topographical peaks, while the name
may refer to the whole flat topped mountain.

(For most mountains natural=ridge is an verifiable alternative when
the name is not actually associated with a particular peak, but some
tablelands are flat enough that a mapper could not be expected to
identify a ridge or a particular peak)

I planned to document the use of natural=plateau - I will suggest that
multipolgyons be avoided and that the tag not be used to map
non-verifiable geometries, like the Columbia plateau, the Altiplano,
or any of the other huge plateaus listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau#Large_plateaus - these all are
vaguely bordered by hills, mountains and lowlands, quite different
from a small tableland surrounded by cliffs on all sides.

On 4/17/19, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> The way OSM usually works is someone stumbles over something in
>> reality, with a discernible name or property, and adds it to OSM. We
>> are, first and foremost, surveyors.
>>
>> The larger a feature becomes, the less suitable OSM is for mapping
>> it. And in the case of the several large-scale objects I have
>> mentioned, most contributors don't even have surveying in mind, but
>> just writing down existing conventions.
>
> Indeed.  We should always keep in mind that OSM is fundamentally about
> collecting local knowledge of the geography.  'local' is key here.  If
> you try to map some geometry for the Altiplano or the Tibet Plateau
> that is not local knowledge.
>
> As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> is otherwise verifiable of course.  For larger things mapping should
> focus on locally mapping locally surveyable constituent parts or
> aspects of the feature but i would be very careful with creating
> features for them as a whole because this very often drifts from the
> OSM idea of mapping local knowledge to a Wikipedia-like recording of
> social conventions.
>
> Some of the things Joseph mentioned (like buttes) are certainly mappable
> in OSM under this rule - but i'd suggest creating specific well defined
> tags with a precise and tight definition for them and not a generic tag
> for any elevated region.
>
> In any case i think the most valuable thing to map of any of such is the
> constituent elements and aspects of it like natural=cliff,
> natural=arete, natural=peak, natural=bare_rock, natural=scree etc.
>
> --
> 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] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Tomas Straupis]

And here the idea of a new separate data layer (as in GIS) for geometries
of fuzzy features rises again... 
Waiting for its time.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> [...]
>
> The way OSM usually works is someone stumbles over something in
> reality, with a discernible name or property, and adds it to OSM. We
> are, first and foremost, surveyors.
>
> The larger a feature becomes, the less suitable OSM is for mapping
> it. And in the case of the several large-scale objects I have
> mentioned, most contributors don't even have surveying in mind, but
> just writing down existing conventions.

Indeed.  We should always keep in mind that OSM is fundamentally about 
collecting local knowledge of the geography.  'local' is key here.  If 
you try to map some geometry for the Altiplano or the Tibet Plateau 
that is not local knowledge.

As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be 
surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is 
usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it 
is otherwise verifiable of course.  For larger things mapping should 
focus on locally mapping locally surveyable constituent parts or 
aspects of the feature but i would be very careful with creating 
features for them as a whole because this very often drifts from the 
OSM idea of mapping local knowledge to a Wikipedia-like recording of 
social conventions.

Some of the things Joseph mentioned (like buttes) are certainly mappable 
in OSM under this rule - but i'd suggest creating specific well defined 
tags with a precise and tight definition for them and not a generic tag 
for any elevated region.

In any case i think the most valuable thing to map of any of such is the 
constituent elements and aspects of it like natural=cliff, 
natural=arete, natural=peak, natural=bare_rock, natural=scree etc.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[marc marc]

Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit :
> tourism=camp_site
> camp_site=camp_pitch
> 
> which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_  exist.

indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking 
parking=parking_space
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

[Peter Elderson]

I reacted to the comparison with a bridge.
I guess there will be no consensus.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 17 apr. 2019 om 12:19 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

>
>
>
> Apr 17, 2019, 11:21 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing:
>
> * the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the
> crossing physically begins and ends;
> * the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes
>
> Correct?
>
> crossing=yes appears to be used less often than cycleway=crossing
> (and maybe part of all uses of crossing=yes is for things unrelated to
> cycleways).
>
> Also, note that cycleway may be tagged highway=path + bicycle=designated +
> foot=designated
>
> ___
> 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] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 17, 2019, 11:29 AM by frede...@remote.org:

> I think we all should stop seeking out one large-scale feature type
> after the other that is "missing" from OSM and think about how to best
> add them. In my view, the fact that these are underrepresented in OSM is
> not an opportunity to "improve" OSM but a sign that OSM isn't the right
> place for that kind of data.
>
> Instead, let us find a way of recording such imprecise information
> outside of OSM's data model, and make it easy to access it e.g. when
> rendering maps.
>
Especially as such features are subjective, with multiple competing definitions
and local survey is not adding anything useful.

For example splitting Earth's oceanic waters into oceans is subjective, 
mapping one selected division or all of them is not useful in OpenStreetMap

See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_ocean_map.gif 

for multiple splits of oceans, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth 

is similar, the same happens with mountain ranges and other 
similar large-scale features.

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

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 17, 2019, 11:21 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:

> So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing: 
>
> * the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the crossing 
> physically begins and ends;
> * the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes
>
> Correct? 
>
crossing=yes appears to be used less often than cycleway=crossing 
(and maybe part of all uses of crossing=yes is for things unrelated to 
cycleways).

Also, note that cycleway may be tagged highway=path + bicycle=designated + 
foot=designated

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Sven Geggus]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> +1, btw, there are already 226 of these:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch

I object using a generic key like tourism for something this specific as
sub-features of a camp site.  Although the existing ones do look like
miss-tagged camp_site=camp_pitch.

Your suggestion would not allow for tagging a site like this:
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=camp_pitch

which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites _do_ exist.

Very simular beasts are individual plots within allotments and these are
tagged alike camp_site=camp_pitch:
landuse=allotments
allotments=plot

Sven

-- 
"If you don't make lower-resolution mapping data publicly
available, there will be people with their cars and GPS
devices, driving around with their laptops" (Tim Berners-Lee)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

[Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

[Frederik Ramm]

Josh & others,

I think we need to take a break here from making OSM into a map of
large-scale geographic features.

This is getting out of hand. I vividly remember the endless discussions
about bays and peninsulae. Drainage basins. Now plateaus. I don't
remember mountain ranges in the recent past but if they weren't
discussed then they surely are next.

The way OSM usually works is someone stumbles over something in reality,
with a discernible name or property, and adds it to OSM. We are, first
and foremost, surveyors.

The larger a feature becomes, the less suitable OSM is for mapping it.
And in the case of the several large-scale objects I have mentioned,
most contributors don't even have surveying in mind, but just writing
down existing conventions. I haven't checked, but I would be very
surprised if *anyone* actually used the natural=peninsula tag for
something they happen to identify as a peninsula - no, natural=peninsula
is just a method of putting existing geographical names into OSM
(because the fact that something is a peninsula can be auto-detected).
Same with your plateaus and tablelands now - do you really envisage
someone looking at the landscape around them and saying "why, there's a
hard layer of rock here on top of softer layers, and a couple cliffs at
the sides, I guess I'll map this as a plateau"? No, again this is a
situation where you have third-party information about a plateau (and
likely its name) and are looking for ways to get that into OSM.

All these requests are born from a desire to write down existing
large-scale geological/geographical knowledge. But OSM is ill suited for
that; OSM cannot accommodate imprecise features. If you want to map a
mesa well in OSM then it has to be detectable on the ground, and it has
to have a clearly delineated boundary. What you are trying to do here is
adding large-scale features that come in handy when you want to make a
map ata  1:10m or maybe 1:50m scale. Projects like naturalearthdata.com
are ideally suited for that kind of data. OpenStreetMap is not.

I think we all should stop seeking out one large-scale feature type
after the other that is "missing" from OSM and think about how to best
add them. In my view, the fact that these are underrepresented in OSM is
not an opportunity to "improve" OSM but a sign that OSM isn't the right
place for that kind of data.

Instead, let us find a way of recording such imprecise information
outside of OSM's data model, and make it easy to access it e.g. when
rendering maps.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

[Peter Elderson]

So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing:

* the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the crossing
physically begins and ends;
* the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes

Correct?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 17 apr. 2019 om 05:50 schreef John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
> highway=path
>
>
>
> This is all a result on an incomplete tagging set, and using highway=path
> as a catch-all tag to avoid creation and documentation of missing tags. Any
> and all of the footway=* values and sub-tags should also be available for
> cycleway=* path=* and bridleway=* as well.
>
> Also, there is "pedestrian street”  but no "cycling street” -  another
> missing highway=* value. these force unnecessary disparities in tagging
> method. all those videos I see of people in Amsterdam cycling on wide
> dedicated cycling roads with signals and stop lights and corssing and
> whatnot seems like a road to me.
>
> but I am not here for that today, just cycleway=crossing.
>
> When mapping the cycling “roads” I encounter here in Japan, it is a
> cycleway. it may have foot=yes, but it is a cycleway. it is built and
> graded and signed and has curves and access ramps to be a cycleway. it is
> not a footway or a path. it is a cycleway. It quacks like a cycleway, so it
> is one.
>
> In many instances, cycleways are interrupted by large trunk roads, forcing
> cyclists onto a footway=sidewalk and to use regular pedestrian
> infrastructure at lights and signals. this is especially true where a
> cycling road follows a river, and a trunk road crossing the river via a
> bridge forces cyclists to use footways and a nearby intersection crosswalk
> to get to the other side of the bridge to continue on the cycling road. in
> rural areas with very long cycling roads, this is common. I know how to tag
> all that. That is not for cycleway=crossing.
>
> But there are also many dedicated cycleways marked with their own
> crossings when they have to cross a smaller road where a bypass tunnel is
> not practical.
>
>
> Here is a location where I have cycleway and footway bridges, unmarked
> crossings, and marked crossings. There are some cuttings and tunnels too.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.28425/137.90828
>
>
> Similar to how we have bridges, tunnels, cuttings, and other features of
> the way, “crossing” is not any different. the handwringing over having to
> to use “path” is taking it way too far.
>
> We wouldn't be doing such mental gymnastics for a bridge - it too is a
> property of the way, and tags the method of crossing another way (the
> river).
>
> "It is a cycleway. it is a bridge.” is no different than “it is a
> cycleway. "It is a road crossing” , beyond the intersecting node.
>
> Regardless if it is appropriate for use in your country,  think we can be
> flexible enough to use cycleway=crossing in situations in countries where
> it is appropriate.
>
> 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] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Apr 2019, at 04:19, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> 3) Liechtenstein: 39 nodes. 8 have a word or suffix that defines a
> specific feature like "wald" = wood, "berg" = hill/mountain. I don't
> know German well enough to guess any of the others, or they appear to
> be just a name



it doesn’t necessarily mean that the feature the name (apparently) comes from 
is still relevant. Some examples: Hamburg, Nürnberg, Schweinsfurt, Greifswald, 
...
It is not all that different for smaller places, generally you need local 
knowledge to interpret the situation reliably.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The several related Wikipedia pages failed to mention Table Mount as a
synonym, even though they had plenty of foreign language terms listed.
American English bias perhaps?

The first hit I get for “table mount” is Guyot: “In marine geology, a guyot
also known as a tablemount, is an isolated underwater volcanic mountain (
seamount)”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyot

That’s not the same. There is also a proper name “Table Mountain”, a
flat-topped mountain on the Cape of Good Hope peninsula by Capetown

It looks like the Dutch / Afrikaans term is literally “Tablemountain”.
Perhaps it is the same in German?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 17. Apr 2019, at 06:55, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > I searched taginfo for "tableland", "table_land", "table-land",
> > "plateau" and "mesa".
> >
> > There are 94 natural=plateau and 3 natural=mesa.
> > I found no uses of natural=table or table_land or tableland or tableland
>
>
> there are also 52 natural=plain and no *=high_plain nor * table_mount or
> flat-top_mount
>
> Would you see a tableland different from table_mount or synonymous? After
> all these are different words.
>
> Maybe there is overlap?
>
> Generally I would prefer to use an English English term, rather than a
> Spanish or French English term.
>
> 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] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Apr 2019, at 06:55, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> I searched taginfo for "tableland", "table_land", "table-land",
> "plateau" and "mesa".
> 
> There are 94 natural=plateau and 3 natural=mesa.
> I found no uses of natural=table or table_land or tableland or tableland


there are also 52 natural=plain and no *=high_plain nor * table_mount or 
flat-top_mount

Would you see a tableland different from table_mount or synonymous? After all 
these are different words.

Maybe there is overlap?

Generally I would prefer to use an English English term, rather than a Spanish 
or French English term.

Cheers, Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Markus]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 16:26, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> > @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), I've
> > already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone will push
> > OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future.
>
> It will be very difficult to handle such relations in osm2pgsql, the
> tool that is used to import the database for rendering, as long as the
> group relation can include other relations, ways, and nodes in one
> object.
>
> Is there any reason that lake groups cannot be tagged as multipolygon
> relations? These are already handled by most database users, including
> Openstreetmap-Carto.

It's not just about groups of lakes. There are other groups, where the
individual elements either have no name or individual names, for
example this group of natural reserves [1] or this group of sculptures
[2]. The group of sculptures consists of nodes, thus a multi-polygon
relation doesn't work for it. And for other groups that could be
mapped as multi-polygons (such as the group of natural reserves), this
would mean that we would need new tags for about every existing tag
(at least for about every tag that is used on areas).

[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8856988
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8961321

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

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

[Warin]

On 17/04/19 15:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 12:21, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places
in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality
is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific
tag.


Thanks for your extremely detailed research Joseph!

Have just done some checking around our area & found that a lot of the 
place=locality listings should probably be =suburb or =neighbourhood 
(& a lot of them were done by me, so I'll have to go in & fix them all!).


Couple to get an opinion on though, please.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4313816641#map=14/-28.1502/153.3205 is 
Austinville, which is the area located along the length of Austinville 
Road. Austinville is a valid locality name, but there is no actual 
spot you can point to & say that's Austinville - there are no shops, 
petrol station etc, only houses / farms & a Community Hall.


What would it be if it's not a =locality? =village / hamlet / suburb / 
neighbourhood?


Same thing for Springbrook: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4316622215#map=14/-28.1872/153.2702, 
which is the area on top of Springbrook Mountain. Once again, fairly 
sparsely populated - maybe 500?, but no distinct centre of town, 
except one general store, a Primary School & a handful of cafe's.


There are a few others around that are similar - they have a 
population, but there are only 100 - 200 people living in an area of 
200+ sq k - seems way to sparse to be labelled as village or anything 
similar?




Hamlets too me.

If it has a store, cafes and a school probably a village? Petrol?

Does look like place=locality has been a catch all for when mappers did 
not know of another more detailed tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging