Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> ...the centre of Paris in a Nolliplan: http://www.iad 
> bs.de/site/assets/files/1954/schwarzplan.jpg

> All the areas where the streets widen significantly at junctions with other 
> streets are likely squares (you can’t see the smaller ones in this scale). 
> The surrounding buildings will often accentuate the square (raised corners, 
> main facade to the square etc.)

So is evey street intersecton in the Eixample part of Barcelona a place=square?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample
"The Eixample is characterized by long straight streets, a strict grid
pattern crossed by wide avenues, and square blocks with chamfered
corners"

-- Joseph

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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"Here’s an example of a square in Berlin in a residential early 20th
century area:"

Is this mapped as a leisure=park in Openstreetmap? If so, then I don't
see any need to also map the same area as a square.

> I would still count them in, or we will end up splitting hair about how much 
> of a square must be paved in order to be a square.

Why is this a problem? When mapping areas with some trees, a mapper
must decide how much of the ground is covered by tree canopy to make
it a woodland (natural=wood) instead of a grassland savana
(natural=grassland) or pasture with a few trees (landuse=meadow).

Mappers always have to make decisions on border cases, and usually the
decision will come down to "what is most of the area covered with?"

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/24/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 23. Mar 2020, at 15:07, Joseph Eisenberg
>> In Indonesia an "alun-alun" is never small, they are always rather
>> large to very large open areas.
>
>
> so these are likely not the only kind of squares in Indonesia (if you decide
> they are squares at all, or some of them), there will probably also be
> smaller ones.
>
>
>>
>> Many are grassy fields with a few trees, planted north and south of an
>> old palace, or as a parade ground for the military back in the
>> colonial era, and these are mostly tagged as leisure=park, because
>> they are grass and trees now. These are mainly for recreation and for
>> looking nice.
>>
>> Some are now playing fields, like soccer pitches + volleyball /
>> basketball courts
>>
>> A few are still police/military parade grounds (not many), grass or
>> grass/dirt.
>>
>> But some have pavement (often pavers, sometimes bricks, concrete,
>> asphalt, stone etc) and are used for temporary markets, rallies,
>> public events, etc. - these seem similar to a European square.
>
>
> seems so by this description, although festival grounds would typically not
> fall in the square definition IMHO.
>
> I’m unsure about military parade grounds, but would tend to include them
> (thinking of central open areas used for mustering and surrounded by
> barracks)
>
>
>>
>> Should I map all of these as "place=square" since "square" =>
>> "alun-alun", even though many of these alun-alun could be a
>> leisure=park, leisure=garden, leisure=pitch instead?
>
>
> You should get rid of the either or idea, they can be both (or squares can
> contain areas which are gardens, parks, maybe pitches. Actually I would
> exclude dedicated sports grounds generally but there could be exceptions.
>
>
>>
>> "You would usually need to see the context in order to understand
>> whether these are just parks or parks on squares."
>>
>> So what about the context will tell me whether or not it is a
>> place=square?
>
>
> their position in the road network and the surrounding areas (is it inside a
> built up area?)
>
>
>> It can't be out in the countryside, can it?
>
>
> within a village or maybe even hamlet yes, in the open countryside usually
> no.
>
>
>> Or a parade
>> ground in a military base?
>
>
> maybe
>
>
>> A grass lawn in the middle of an apartment
>> complex?
>
>
> no
>
>
>> A patio in a park?
>
>
> I don’t understand this meaning of patio, can you post an example? A patio
> to me means an open space inside a block of buildings or within a building
> (inner courtyard)
>
>
>>
>> I think there should be a practical, physical definition of what is a
>> place=square. If it doesn't have to be hardscaped (whether paved or
>> just packed soil), should it at least lack tall vegetation which
>> blocks views and movement?
>
>
> It could have tall vegetation as a means of structuring it, or to separate
> it from surrounding streets, but this would usually be partial and allow
> passing.
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps a flat area with mostly short grass can still be a square, but
>> certainly not if it is mostly covered by trees, shrubs and flower
>> beds.
>
>
> Here’s an example of a square in Berlin in a residential early 20th century
> area:
>
>
> http://www.stern-berlin.com/assets/content/images/stadtquartiere/stadterneuerung/SG-Kollwitzplatz-Luftbild.jpg
>
> https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0f/e5/cd/c8/photo1jpg.jpg
>
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kollwitzplatz_(Berlin-Prenzlauer_Berg)
>
>
> It boasts all of the features you mention (scrubs, tall trees, etc.)
> From my understanding, the square polygon would share nodes with the
> surrounding buildings, while the park/garden is contained, but smaller (the
> square minus the outer sidewalk minus the street minus the inner sidewalk).
>
>
>> That's a park or garden, even if it is called "Plaza de Armas"
>> or "Old Village Square".
>>
>
>
> I agree that these cases could eventually be questioned, one could argue
> they have been squares before and are now parks. I would still count them
> in, or we will end up splitting hair about how much of a square must be
> paved in order to be a square.
>
> WRT pedestrian spaces, here’s the 

Re: [Tagging] Clearer definition of tunnel ...

[Michael Patrick]

> To me a tunnel is different from a pipeline in regard of structure and
building technique.

Of course, we also have to consider pipelines inside of tunnels ( Thttps://
img.russianpatents.com/1165/11654510-o.jpg ) and cryogenic transmission
lines which have pipelines inside of pipelines inside of tunnels. :-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Place=square was defined until 3 days ago as “a
> named square” and “a town or village square which is an open space common in
> urban centres, typically crossed by streets but can also be a pedestrian
> area or more rarely green areas.”
>
> I am perfectly fine with this documented definition

But the first part wasn't a definition. "A named square" is not a
defintion at all, since the word "square" is undefined. If this means
"a feature that includes the word "square" in the name" as the page
suggested back in 2015-2016 this is even worse, since it is completely
culturally determined. I would be justified to tag all "alun-alun"
feature as squares, even those that are 100% soccer pitch now, and
those function as a walled palace garden.

It also was incorrect as to how the tag is used; many place=square
features are unnamed, as mentioned in this thread.

The first second definition was a little better: " an open space
common in urban centres..."
Though this could be used for a leisure=pitch or leisure=park or
leisure=garden or an amenity=parking, or a fenced-off roundabout
etc...

But then the second half of the definition offers several more possibilitiies:
"typically crossed by streets" - That one is unclear, does it mean a
street intersection/ road junction? Most mapped place=squares are NOT
crossed by streets, it turns out.

"But can also be a pedestria area or more rarely green areas.”

A highway=pedestrian area is certainly a type of open public space, so
that is fine, and the most classic squares fit that definition.

But what does "more rarely green areas" mean? Is a green area just a
flat, mowed lawn, or can it be an elaborate garden with trees, knolls,
ponds? Can it be a leisure=pitch? Can it be a park with trees, picnic
areas?

I don't think that is what was intended: generally a "square" seems to
be designed to be used for events or for people to congregate, at
least historically, so if it is green, it is just grass, not trees,
flowers, shrubs, gardens, water features, etc, else it's a park or
garden.

That's whey the prior definition is inadequate: it is non-orthagonal,
it can include many types of features, and is impossible to translate
into different cultures.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Mar 2020, at 23:03, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
>  (seriously, New York
> is not part of New England)


pardon my ignorance ;-)


> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229
> 
> does not use sqaure in the name and is not place=square.


it looks like a square on the map and “plaza” seems a synonym for square, or 
not?


Also this could be a square:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.29345/-76.60253
> 
> could be, but it could also just be a bit of grass.


agreed, it doesn’t appear to have a name related to a square.



> That's fine, but the point is not that we have zero things in the US
> that meet the Euro definition of square.  It is that we have many things
> that have square in the name that do not, and therefore that inhabitants
> of the US, or at least New England, do not relate at all to the EURO
> definition of square.
> 
> Here is the most well known thing named square in New England (six
> states):
> 
>  https://osm.org/go/ZfI4p0cT9--


looks like a square and has the name, which part of the definition does not fit?



> 
> Here's another example of someting with Square in the name that is not a
> place=square
> 
> https://osm.org/go/ZfI6Neyh0--


if we are speaking about the big parking triangle, I would see it as a square.

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Mar 2020, at 20:07, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Actually, I think that "You can't tag something
> because I don't see a need for it" is not a very good idea, but apparently
> some people think otherwise.


This is not what was written. I wrote if you don’t have the things that the tag 
describes in your area then do not use the tag. I would never think or say you 
cannot tag xy because I am not interested in it.


Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Mar 2020, at 20:07, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> But it has been documented, interpreted and used (by people other
> than yourself) to mean the public place you do not want it to mean.


Have a look at the history. Place=square was defined until 3 days ago as “a 
named square” and “a town or village square which is an open space common in 
urban centres, typically crossed by streets but can also be a pedestrian area 
or more rarely green areas.”

I am perfectly fine with this documented definition, although we may work to 
improve it. I am not at all opposing the idea that this is about a public place.

I am opposing the new requirements that have been introduced in the past days 
and the suggestion to remove the tag from squares that contain junctions or 
parks. Or that usefulness for community gatherings is a strict requirement. Or 
being surrounded by buildings (although I agree that at least one building 
should probably be required).

Cheers Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Mar 2020, at 15:07, Joseph Eisenberg
> In Indonesia an "alun-alun" is never small, they are always rather
> large to very large open areas.


so these are likely not the only kind of squares in Indonesia (if you decide 
they are squares at all, or some of them), there will probably also be smaller 
ones.


> 
> Many are grassy fields with a few trees, planted north and south of an
> old palace, or as a parade ground for the military back in the
> colonial era, and these are mostly tagged as leisure=park, because
> they are grass and trees now. These are mainly for recreation and for
> looking nice.
> 
> Some are now playing fields, like soccer pitches + volleyball /
> basketball courts
> 
> A few are still police/military parade grounds (not many), grass or 
> grass/dirt.
> 
> But some have pavement (often pavers, sometimes bricks, concrete,
> asphalt, stone etc) and are used for temporary markets, rallies,
> public events, etc. - these seem similar to a European square.


seems so by this description, although festival grounds would typically not 
fall in the square definition IMHO. 

I’m unsure about military parade grounds, but would tend to include them 
(thinking of central open areas used for mustering and surrounded by barracks)


> 
> Should I map all of these as "place=square" since "square" =>
> "alun-alun", even though many of these alun-alun could be a
> leisure=park, leisure=garden, leisure=pitch instead?


You should get rid of the either or idea, they can be both (or squares can 
contain areas which are gardens, parks, maybe pitches. Actually I would exclude 
dedicated sports grounds generally but there could be exceptions.


> 
> "You would usually need to see the context in order to understand
> whether these are just parks or parks on squares."
> 
> So what about the context will tell me whether or not it is a
> place=square?


their position in the road network and the surrounding areas (is it inside a 
built up area?)


> It can't be out in the countryside, can it?


within a village or maybe even hamlet yes, in the open countryside usually no.


> Or a parade
> ground in a military base?


maybe 


> A grass lawn in the middle of an apartment
> complex?


no


> A patio in a park?


I don’t understand this meaning of patio, can you post an example? A patio to 
me means an open space inside a block of buildings or within a building (inner 
courtyard)


> 
> I think there should be a practical, physical definition of what is a
> place=square. If it doesn't have to be hardscaped (whether paved or
> just packed soil), should it at least lack tall vegetation which
> blocks views and movement?


It could have tall vegetation as a means of structuring it, or to separate it 
from surrounding streets, but this would usually be partial and allow passing.


> 
> Perhaps a flat area with mostly short grass can still be a square, but
> certainly not if it is mostly covered by trees, shrubs and flower
> beds.


Here’s an example of a square in Berlin in a residential early 20th century 
area:


http://www.stern-berlin.com/assets/content/images/stadtquartiere/stadterneuerung/SG-Kollwitzplatz-Luftbild.jpg

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0f/e5/cd/c8/photo1jpg.jpg

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kollwitzplatz_(Berlin-Prenzlauer_Berg)


It boasts all of the features you mention (scrubs, tall trees, etc.)
From my understanding, the square polygon would share nodes with the 
surrounding buildings, while the park/garden is contained, but smaller (the 
square minus the outer sidewalk minus the street minus the inner sidewalk).


> That's a park or garden, even if it is called "Plaza de Armas"
> or "Old Village Square".
> 


I agree that these cases could eventually be questioned, one could argue they 
have been squares before and are now parks. I would still count them in, or we 
will end up splitting hair about how much of a square must be paved in order to 
be a square.

WRT pedestrian spaces, here’s the centre of Paris in a Nolliplan: 
http://www.iad-bs.de/site/assets/files/1954/schwarzplan.jpg
All the areas where the streets widen significantly at junctions with other 
streets are likely squares (you can’t see the smaller ones in this scale). The 
surrounding buildings will often accentuate the square (raised corners, main 
facade to the square etc.)
Usually there will be a relationship of streets and squares.

Another type of squares are those in front of significant/important/monumental 
buildings (e.g. churches, public buildings like town halls, train stations, 
parliaments, castles, ...)

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Martin,

What would you proposed as the description= (in the Infobox) for place=square?

What changes do you propose to the current text of the page to improve
the definition?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/24/20, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:
>
>> Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 18:47 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel :
>>
>>> We need it for en_US, too, because in the US, at least in New England,
>>> everybody knows what Square means and it is different from what this
>>> thread is discussing.
>>
>> Think about pre-60ies urbanism. And "new urbanism", for example.
>
> Sorry, too confusing!
>
>> Here are some examples in New England (I do not know them from visiting,
>> but they are obvious from looking at the map):
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/530038747
>
> not tagged as place=square.  not in New England!  (seriously, New York
> is not part of New England)
>
> Yes, uses Square in name and fits the eurodef.
>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229
>
> does not use sqaure in the name and is not place=square.
>
> Not clear if it really functions as a eurodef-square.
>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229 Union Square
>
> wrong link, but guessing you mean
> https://osm.org/go/Zct8XcGSc--?layers=N then that seems like maybe it
> fits and is named.
>
>> Also this could be a square:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.29345/-76.60253
>
> could be, but it could also just be a bit of grass.
>
>> (sorry no time for more examples now)
>
> That's fine, but the point is not that we have zero things in the US
> that meet the Euro definition of square.  It is that we have many things
> that have square in the name that do not, and therefore that inhabitants
> of the US, or at least New England, do not relate at all to the EURO
> definition of square.
>
> Here is the most well known thing named square in New England (six
> states):
>
>   https://osm.org/go/ZfI4p0cT9--
>
> and note the green area to the NE is not part of Harvard Square - it is
> "Harvard Yard", which is a thing near Harvard Square.
>
>
> Here's another example of someting with Square in the name that is not a
> place=square
>
> https://osm.org/go/ZfI6Neyh0--
>
> ___
> 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] Shelter for bats in an old building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Mar 2020, at 14:26, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> I guess it depends on what state the building is in, eg if it's been gutted 
> and in need of a lot of maintenance to be a functional service building then 
> I'd probably still use the lifecycle prefix.


judging by the lifecycle tags, “disused:” is hardly fitting for any building 
(it is a tag that makes sense for functions and services). Even “abandoned” 
buildings are still seen as buildings, typically. For ruins it could make sense 
to use lifecycle tags, as these will commonly be seen as not a building anymore.

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 18:47 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel :
>
>> We need it for en_US, too, because in the US, at least in New England,
>> everybody knows what Square means and it is different from what this
>> thread is discussing.
>
> Think about pre-60ies urbanism. And "new urbanism", for example.

Sorry, too confusing!

> Here are some examples in New England (I do not know them from visiting,
> but they are obvious from looking at the map):
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/530038747

not tagged as place=square.  not in New England!  (seriously, New York
is not part of New England)

Yes, uses Square in name and fits the eurodef.

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229

does not use sqaure in the name and is not place=square.

Not clear if it really functions as a eurodef-square.

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229 Union Square

wrong link, but guessing you mean
https://osm.org/go/Zct8XcGSc--?layers=N then that seems like maybe it
fits and is named.

> Also this could be a square:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.29345/-76.60253

could be, but it could also just be a bit of grass.

> (sorry no time for more examples now)

That's fine, but the point is not that we have zero things in the US
that meet the Euro definition of square.  It is that we have many things
that have square in the name that do not, and therefore that inhabitants
of the US, or at least New England, do not relate at all to the EURO
definition of square.

Here is the most well known thing named square in New England (six
states):

  https://osm.org/go/ZfI4p0cT9--

and note the green area to the NE is not part of Harvard Square - it is
"Harvard Yard", which is a thing near Harvard Square.


Here's another example of someting with Square in the name that is not a
place=square

https://osm.org/go/ZfI6Neyh0--

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 18:36, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 01:39 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
>
>> > A blanket rule that anything with "Square" in the name must be mapped as
>> place=square is as defective as one saying that anything with
>> "Maes" in the name must be mapped as a field.
>>
>> Right, and it only works for languages that have a shared cultural
>> heritage (European languages).
>
>
> maybe. It works here. Perfectly.
>

Says you.  You may well be right.  But all I can know with certainty is that
your personal definition of place=square works perfectly for you.  Others
seem
less happy with your definition.

place is inherently about toponyms. That's what it is for.
>

Labels on the map are toponyms.  The place key is a way to get a
toponym rendered as a label.  But the value describes what that thing is
(and, incidentally, may affect font and type size of the label, as well as
the
zooms at which it is rendered).  If place=* were ONLY about toponyms
then we would have just place=yes + name=*.

If we need a tag for an open air area where people can gather, let's invent
> another word for it. Square is not the tag for it.
>

in your opinion, based upon your definition, which perfectly matches how you
choose to use it.  I might even agree with you that, in hindsight, that was
not the best value to use for an open-air, unvegetated area where people can
gather.  But it has been documented, interpreted and used (by people other
than yourself) to mean the public place you do not want it to mean.

It would be nice to be able to learn from all our past mistakes and fork OSM
(and its data) but using better choices for tag names and values.  But when
Fred Brooks wrote "Plan to throw the first one away; you will anyhow." we
didn't have open-sourced continuous development.  There are no major
and minor versions of OSM, there is just a continuously-evolving OSM
where only minor changes can occur at any one time.

>
> Maybe you do not have to use the tag at all, if there is no concept for it
> ("streetname" for objects that are not directed, linear streets but squares
> = undirected, public open space in a street context)?
>

Maybe you don't have to use it at all for your purposes.  Maybe you should
be the one who cannot tag things of interest to him.  Normally I wouldn't
even think of suggesting something like that as an option, but somebody
else suggested it first.  Actually, I think that "You can't tag something
because I don't see a need for it" is not a very good idea, but apparently
some people think otherwise.

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 18:47 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel :

> We need it for en_US, too, because in the US, at least in New England,
> everybody knows what Square means and it is different from what this
> thread is discussing.



Think about pre-60ies urbanism. And "new urbanism", for example.
Here are some examples in New England (I do not know them from visiting,
but they are obvious from looking at the map):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/530038747
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229 Union Square

Also this could be a square:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.29345/-76.60253

(sorry no time for more examples now)

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 01:39 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> > A blanket rule that anything with "Square" in the name must be mapped as
> place=square is as defective as one saying that anything with
> "Maes" in the name must be mapped as a field.
>
> Right, and it only works for languages that have a shared cultural
> heritage (European languages).



maybe. It works here. Perfectly. place is inherently about toponyms. That's
what it is for.
If we need a tag for an open air area where people can gather, let's invent
another word for it. Square is not the tag for it.



> In Indonesian, features that are like
> squares are named with the same word used for grassy fields and
> meadows: "lapangan", and parks use the same word as "garden": "taman".
>
> That is why we need an actual definition of place=square that isn't
> simply "a town square", because I need to be able to translate it into
> Indonesia, for people who have never seen a European town square. I
> suspect that Japanese and Korean will have the same problem, along
> with many other non-European languages.



Maybe you do not have to use the tag at all, if there is no concept for it
("streetname" for objects that are not directed, linear streets but squares
= undirected, public open space in a street context)?

I'm asking honestly.

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

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

[Greg Troxel]

Tobias Wrede  writes:

> It seems I have a different understanding of the concept PO
> box. Around here if you have a PO box mail is delivered there and you
> go yourself pick it up, convenient for people who are rarely at home
> or get huge amounts of mail. In more rural areas I have seen letter
> boxes in one central point of a several km2 area or a box/bag at the
> next major road where mail is delivered to. Again you go there
> yourself to pick it up.

This is how it is in the US, too.

> I must admit I fail to understand your kind of PO box. One delivery
> company delivers to the PO box (which address/location is known) and
> then some other guys pick the mail up there and take it to your home
> which they don't know anything about? Sounds strange to me.

Also doesn't happen in the US.  PO boxes belong to the post office, and
only they deliver to them.  Most (all?) online ordering will only allow
shipment to a PO BOX if shipping is via the post office.

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Greg Troxel]

Joseph Eisenberg  writes:

> That is why we need an actual definition of place=square that isn't
> simply "a town square", because I need to be able to translate it into
> Indonesia, for people who have never seen a European town square. I
> suspect that Japanese and Korean will have the same problem, along
> with many other non-European languages.

We need it for en_US, too, because in the US, at least in New England,
everybody knows what Square means and it is different from what this
thread is discussing.

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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Although in Portugal squares are very well defined, either from their
physical significance or from their name, this is surely not the case in
every country.
Maybe one of their main common characteristics is that they're open
urban areas, a point of confluence where people can gather for social or
cultural events.
I think it won't be possible to find a better common denominator and
that's why there should be good examples on the English wiki and on
other countries' wiki.


Às 06:42 de 23/03/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:



Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 06:26 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>:

"Praça ou largo: Praça, praceta ou largo: espaço numa zona urbana,
normalmente sem edifícios (apenas a volta desta), que constitui um
espaço público aberto"

This translates back to English as (approximately):
"Praça, praceta or largo: space in an urban area, usually without
buildings (except for around it), which constitutes a public open
space"



sounds reasonable (apart that there may be buildings on a square, is
not untypical)


 I'll update this to the new definition from the English page.




Which you keep reverting to your interpretation of square. It
currently reads "A town or village square: a hardscaped open public
space, generally of architectural significance, which is surrounded by
buildings in a built-up area such as a city, town or village."


While I do not object that this is describing a part of all squares, I
do object that these are criteria which are suitable to exclude
objects. For example  "surrounded by buildings" is a typical
situation, but is not a strict requirement. A public square surrounded
by walls would be equally ok, for instance. A square which is not
paved would be ok as well (not usual in many parts of the world, but
quite common in others, where road paving is generally rare). Let me
post some more examples of squares here:


Example for a famous square with buildings on it (Krakov):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.06164/19.93764

Example for a square that is not mainly hardscaped (although in a
developed country), Strausberger Platz in Berlin (socialist urbanism)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.51865/13.42866

Two adjacent squares, with significant parts not hardscaped: Platz vor
dem Neuen Tor, and Robert-Koch-Platz in Berlin
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.52851/13.37865

Another example for a socialist square, mostly open / flowing space,
center is a traffic junction: Platz der Vereinten Nationen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.52328/13.42999

Square that is not surrounded / delimited by buildings (but by walls):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24534437

Another example for a square that is not at all delimited by buildings:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2743565

Example for a minor square without a lot of "architectural
significance" (well, this may depend on your definition of
significance, significant compared to what? One could also say thisi
is significant, as it clearly stands out as open space from the road
grid): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125988144


I've also created an Indonesian page, which gives a couple examples of
"alun-alun" in Indonesia which fit the definition:

1)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Alun-alun_Garut.jpg/400px-Alun-alun_Garut.jpg

2)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg/400px-Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg

But there are many other alun-alun that are grassy urban parks,
not squares:

A)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zpwpVxKz0q0/UXoUmFzUAXI/BpI/brIHP9_dQQY/s400/images.jpg

B)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alun-alun_Tugu_-_Bunder_-_panoramio.jpg

C)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Square_Trenggalek_-_Alun-Alun_Trenggalek_-_panoramio_(10).jpg



From photos it is hard to judge these, because you would usually need
to see the context in order to understand whether these are just parks
or parks on squares. I also notice that these are all huge. Try to
think of small squares as well, e.g. places like this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/41/da/8341dab9b3f5b929cc136f06b01bb3cb.jpg
http://www.italymoviewalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/fontana-delle-tartarughe-roma-movie-walks.jpg

Cheers
Martin


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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Volker Schmidt]

Please leave the description vague. Every one of us will be able to come up
with a list of "squares" that don't fulfil the criteria we will define.
They often have the role of landmarks for the population, long after the
original square (as empty space for the people) has disappeared.

Or maybe a completely different approach could bring all the different
meanings into one framework:
place=square
plus
suare:type=

The square type values could handle all the regional variants, including
using the local type names.




Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, 10:46 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 09:56 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard <
> lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:
>
>> My only problem with "fixing unnamed place=square" is that i know at
>> least 2 locations where the village center open area is definitely a
>> place=square (i.e. an open area with some car parks, and open just in front
>> of the church that was historically the place for gathering people but also
>> cattle (and now used for people, cars, market, village gathering,...)) *but
>> they have no name, it is just an open area.*
>>
>
>
> indeed, while names are very common, they should not necessarily be a hard
> requirement, if everyone agrees that the area in question is indeed a
> square / place. Btw., place=locality without a name doesn't make more sense
> than place=square, but less.
>
> 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] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> reads "A town or village square: a hardscaped open public space, generally
> of architectural significance, which is surrounded by buildings in a
> built-up area such as a city, town or village."
>
> While I do not object that this is describing a part of all squares, I do
> object that these are criteria which are suitable to exclude objects. For
> example  "surrounded by buildings" is a typical situation, but is not a
> strict requirement. A public square surrounded by walls would be equally
> ok, for instance. A square which is not paved would be ok as well (not
> usual in many parts of the world, but quite common in others, where road
> paving is generally rare). Let me post some more examples of squares here:
> ...

> [Indonesian alun-alun]
> From photos it is hard to judge these, because you would usually need to
> see the context in order to understand whether these are just parks or
> parks on squares.

In Indonesia an "alun-alun" is never small, they are always rather
large to very large open areas.

Many are grassy fields with a few trees, planted north and south of an
old palace, or as a parade ground for the military back in the
colonial era, and these are mostly tagged as leisure=park, because
they are grass and trees now. These are mainly for recreation and for
looking nice.

Some are now playing fields, like soccer pitches + volleyball /
basketball courts

A few are still police/military parade grounds (not many), grass or grass/dirt.

But some have pavement (often pavers, sometimes bricks, concrete,
asphalt, stone etc) and are used for temporary markets, rallies,
public events, etc. - these seem similar to a European square.

Should I map all of these as "place=square" since "square" =>
"alun-alun", even though many of these alun-alun could be a
leisure=park, leisure=garden, leisure=pitch instead?

"You would usually need to see the context in order to understand
whether these are just parks or parks on squares."

So what about the context will tell me whether or not it is a
place=square? It can't be out in the countryside, can it? Or a parade
ground in a military base? A grass lawn in the middle of an apartment
complex? A patio in a park?

I think there should be a practical, physical definition of what is a
place=square. If it doesn't have to be hardscaped (whether paved or
just packed soil), should it at least lack tall vegetation which
blocks views and movement?

Perhaps a flat area with mostly short grass can still be a square, but
certainly not if it is mostly covered by trees, shrubs and flower
beds. That's a park or garden, even if it is called "Plaza de Armas"
or "Old Village Square".

-- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 09:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> From photos it is hard to judge these, because you would usually need to
> see the context in order to understand whether these are just parks or
> parks on squares. I also notice that these are all huge. Try to think of
> small squares as well
>

Or this?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08014=-4.66030#map=19/52.08014/-4.66030

Sorry for the Google image: https://goo.gl/maps/rh1ha5yjhjoV25Re7

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

Re: [Tagging] Number of route relation errors very much reduced

[Peter Elderson]

Id-users do not break the routes as often as they used to. Assuming the
users did not change overnight, I guess the ID-release caused that. Other
online editors I seldom encountered when looking at a break, but I would be
haoppy to give them credit for some of the errors! Josm caused few errors,
and these were mainly of  type "ordering error" in bus routes and cycling
routes.

Editing/maintaining the routes is not the same as not breaking them. But
you knew that, I guess.
If anyone is interesting I could provide a list of capabilities needed for
proper maintenance of recreational routes.

PT-routes, I will not burn my hands on those: I would probably be targeted
by all PT-war parties.
But IF exact routes (ordered chain of ways)  are to be maintained for PT,
the improvement in ID also helps greatly with that. Detecting
incidental breaks is the main issue, fixing them  is a POC.

(As long as the directions are held as separate routes. The
backward/forward role system in routes is a ginormous PITA to me.)

Best, Peter Elderson


Op ma 23 mrt. 2020 om 11:56 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 23/03/2020 10:38, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >
> > I am very happy to report that my current check finds very few
> > integrity errors, and the few I see are not caused by using a specific
> > editing tool. Compliments to the "ID-people", you have done it!
> >
> >
> Great!
>
>
> > This does not mean ID is now a good route editor. Sorry guys,
> > but for serious route maintenance JOSM still is the only option!
> >
> >
> Er, what?  This seems completely at variance with what you just said
> above!  Also, I'm not sure what those of us who mainly use neither iD
> nor JOSM* are supposed to think - maybe we don't exist...
>
> Best Regards (not entirely seriously),
>
> Andy
>
> * Potlatch and Vespucci, for info
>
>
> ___
> 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] Number of route relation errors very much reduced

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/03/2020 10:38, Peter Elderson wrote:


I am very happy to report that my current check finds very few 
integrity errors, and the few I see are not caused by using a specific 
editing tool. Compliments to the "ID-people", you have done it!




Great!


This does not mean ID is now a good route editor. Sorry guys, 
but for serious route maintenance JOSM still is the only option!



Er, what?  This seems completely at variance with what you just said 
above!  Also, I'm not sure what those of us who mainly use neither iD 
nor JOSM* are supposed to think - maybe we don't exist...


Best Regards (not entirely seriously),

Andy

* Potlatch and Vespucci, for info


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

[Tagging] Number of route relation errors very much reduced

[Peter Elderson]

I do regular integrity checks of long distance route relations in Nederland.
I used to find dozens of errors in each trail. These trails are 200-400 Km
long (10-20 days).
The errors were typically caused by users not repairing the routes after
cutting, deleting, extending or otherwise editing ways. The main editor
involved was ID. JOSM in a minority of cases.

I am very happy to report that my current check finds very few integrity
errors, and the few I see are not caused by using a specific editing tool.
Compliments to the "ID-people", you have done it!

I now need 5-10 minutes to check and repair a 20 day hiking route. I have
about 40 of these on my list. If I spend 1 hour a month, I can now check
them all twice in a year.

This does not mean ID is now a good route editor. Sorry guys, but for
serious route maintenance JOSM still is the only option!

If there were an online relation editor even remotely capable of what the
JOSM relation editor can do, I would certainly prefer that. It would not
have to be built into ID. Editing routes "any time, any place" without
having to carry a laptop around would be a step forward for me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 09:56 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard <
lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:

> My only problem with "fixing unnamed place=square" is that i know at least
> 2 locations where the village center open area is definitely a place=square
> (i.e. an open area with some car parks, and open just in front of the
> church that was historically the place for gathering people but also cattle
> (and now used for people, cars, market, village gathering,...)) *but they
> have no name, it is just an open area.*
>


indeed, while names are very common, they should not necessarily be a hard
requirement, if everyone agrees that the area in question is indeed a
square / place. Btw., place=locality without a name doesn't make more sense
than place=square, but less.

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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 06:26 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> "Praça ou largo: Praça, praceta ou largo: espaço numa zona urbana,
> normalmente sem edifícios (apenas a volta desta), que constitui um
> espaço público aberto"
>
> This translates back to English as (approximately):
> "Praça, praceta or largo: space in an urban area, usually without
> buildings (except for around it), which constitutes a public open
> space"
>


sounds reasonable (apart that there may be buildings on a square, is not
untypical)


 I'll update this to the new definition from the English page.
>



Which you keep reverting to your interpretation of square. It currently
reads "A town or village square: a hardscaped open public space, generally
of architectural significance, which is surrounded by buildings in a
built-up area such as a city, town or village."


While I do not object that this is describing a part of all squares, I do
object that these are criteria which are suitable to exclude objects. For
example  "surrounded by buildings" is a typical situation, but is not a
strict requirement. A public square surrounded by walls would be equally
ok, for instance. A square which is not paved would be ok as well (not
usual in many parts of the world, but quite common in others, where road
paving is generally rare). Let me post some more examples of squares here:


Example for a famous square with buildings on it (Krakov):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.06164/19.93764

Example for a square that is not mainly hardscaped (although in a developed
country), Strausberger Platz in Berlin (socialist urbanism)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.51865/13.42866

Two adjacent squares, with significant parts not hardscaped: Platz vor dem
Neuen Tor, and Robert-Koch-Platz in Berlin
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.52851/13.37865

Another example for a socialist square, mostly open / flowing space, center
is a traffic junction: Platz der Vereinten Nationen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.52328/13.42999

Square that is not surrounded / delimited by buildings (but by walls):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24534437

Another example for a square that is not at all delimited by buildings:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2743565

Example for a minor square without a lot of "architectural significance"
(well, this may depend on your definition of significance, significant
compared to what? One could also say thisi is significant, as it clearly
stands out as open space from the road grid):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125988144




> I've also created an Indonesian page, which gives a couple examples of
> "alun-alun" in Indonesia which fit the definition:
>
> 1)
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Alun-alun_Garut.jpg/400px-Alun-alun_Garut.jpg
>
> 2)
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg/400px-Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg
>
> But there are many other alun-alun that are grassy urban parks, not
> squares:
>
> A)
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zpwpVxKz0q0/UXoUmFzUAXI/BpI/brIHP9_dQQY/s400/images.jpg
>
> B)
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alun-alun_Tugu_-_Bunder_-_panoramio.jpg
>
> C)
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Square_Trenggalek_-_Alun-Alun_Trenggalek_-_panoramio_(10).jpg
>
>

>From photos it is hard to judge these, because you would usually need to
see the context in order to understand whether these are just parks or
parks on squares. I also notice that these are all huge. Try to think of
small squares as well, e.g. places like this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/41/da/8341dab9b3f5b929cc136f06b01bb3cb.jpg
http://www.italymoviewalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/fontana-delle-tartarughe-roma-movie-walks.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[Lionel Giard]

My only problem with "fixing unnamed place=square" is that i know at least
2 locations where the village center open area is definitely a place=square
(i.e. an open area with some car parks, and open just in front of the
church that was historically the place for gathering people but also cattle
(and now used for people, cars, market, village gathering,...)) *but they
have no name, it is just an open area.* We just refer it to the "Place"
(literally "Square" in french), and sometimes we say "Place du village"
(Village square). Do you think that adding the name = "Place" is preferable
? It might be what we want even if it is not official ? Or would you map it
otherwise, maybe place=locality (but it seems wierd to me) ? :-)

Regards,
Lionel

Le lun. 23 mars 2020 à 06:26, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> > the keywords from the preset translation
>
> Yes, thank you. (Sorry, I use a satellite internet connection, so iD
> doesn't work too well for me):
>
> "Praça ou largo: Praça, praceta ou largo: espaço numa zona urbana,
> normalmente sem edifícios (apenas a volta desta), que constitui um
> espaço público aberto"
>
> This translates back to English as (approximately):
> "Praça, praceta or largo: space in an urban area, usually without
> buildings (except for around it), which constitutes a public open
> space"
>
> This definition is taken from the Data Item
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q6077 - where it is by far
> the most complete definition.
>
> Most of the others are just "A named square" translated into the local
> language:
>
> Una plaza con nombre.
> Une place nommée.
> Piazza.
> Pojmenované náměstí
> Ein öffentlicher Platz
>
> I'll update this to the new definition from the English page.
>
> I've also created an Indonesian page, which gives a couple examples of
> "alun-alun" in Indonesia which fit the definition:
>
> 1)
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Alun-alun_Garut.jpg/400px-Alun-alun_Garut.jpg
>
> 2)
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg/400px-Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg
>
> But there are many other alun-alun that are grassy urban parks, not
> squares:
>
> A)
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zpwpVxKz0q0/UXoUmFzUAXI/BpI/brIHP9_dQQY/s400/images.jpg
>
> B)
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alun-alun_Tugu_-_Bunder_-_panoramio.jpg
>
> C)
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Square_Trenggalek_-_Alun-Alun_Trenggalek_-_panoramio_(10).jpg
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 3/23/20, António Madeira  wrote:
> > When you say description, are you referring to the definition from the
> > wiki, or the keywords from the preset translation?
> > This?
> > https://i.imgur.com/Id8xOaJ.png
> >
> > Or this?
> > https://i.imgur.com/tXXb0Yr.png
> >
> >
> > Às 22:25 de 22/03/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:
> >> So in iD does it just show "uma praça" as the description for
> >> place=square?
> >>
> >> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> >>
> >> On 3/23/20, António Madeira  wrote:
> >>> In Portuguese it's "Praça", similar to Piazza, which comes from the
> >>> Latin "platea".
> >>> Depending on its size and location, it can be named officially as
> >>> "Praça", "Largo"or "Praceta".
> >>>
> >>> The English description of place=square in iD is empty.
> >>>
> >>> https://i.imgur.com/AIqEuuC.png
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Às 21:41 de 22/03/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:
>  Curious: what is the translation used in Portuguese?
> 
>  Do you also know the English description of place=square used in iD?
> 
>  On 3/23/20, António Madeira  wrote:
> > I agree that the place=square needs some kind of polishing, specially
> > regarding name tag, which should be mandatory.
> > In Portugal, the definition of square can have three meanings,
> > depending
> > on its size and region, but it's easy to map them because they all
> > have
> > name.
> >
> > The problem with iD can be its translation/localization. The
> > Portuguese
> > community had to discuss what was the best translation so that
> newbies
> > could get it right more often via iD.
> > Maybe this must be done also in Germany.
> >
> >
> > Às 10:46 de 22/03/2020, Tom Pfeifer escreveu:
> >> Yes there is inconsistent use of place=square, in particular for
> >> _unnamed_ objects.
> >> As the place=* key is used to indicate that a particular location is
> >> known by a particular name,
> >> a place=* tag without a name is fundamentally wrong.
> >>
> >> (As the world is not black and white, there might be exceptions.)
> >>
> >> In Germany alone I found >600 such taggings, and all I probed were:
> >>
> >> 1. not squares as in the definition, but small and insignificant
> >> paved
> >> surfaces, like a round piece of footway in a park, the service yard
> >> of
> >> a fire station, or similar.
> >>
> >> 2. they were all added