Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

[Warin]

On 5/6/20 10:46 am, Greg Troxel wrote:


Sure.  I tend to think that if something is semantically sensible and
can be represented, it's good to tag it, and then rendering is another
story.  I think pretty much everyone agrees that landuse=residential and
natural=wood are both sensible to represent.  And that how they ought to
be rendered in a general purpose landuse/landcover style is much less
settled.


Rendering is another area.

My view: the render has to decide what is more 'important' - land cover or land 
use and then how to each group.

I note how the land use military is mapped - strips so the land cover under it 
could be seen. If all land use were map similarity then that could work.

Alternatively land cover could be represented as a symbol like tree areas 
symbol. Loose the background colours for all land covers and use symbols.
Land uses would then be solid covers. Does not work for wwater so I think this 
would lead to more problems.

I think I prefer the land use mapped as less 'important' - thus land cover gets 
solid colours...

---
Whatever the renders decide we should map what is there, residential with or 
without trees, grass, flowers, scrub, whatever.


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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

[Warin]

On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

"this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this
land might be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could
still build a patio and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some
trees, it is my residential land and I am allowed to do that,
meaning it has residential use, even if it is "unimproved" presently.

It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.



I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then for; shade, to 
sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book under, think about things. 
People park their cars, caravans and boats under them.


They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my residence.

If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse, will grass and 
flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to be mapped as residential 
landuse in OSM? I think that would be ridiculous.




These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to appear
to be removing property rights from residential landowners (by
diminishing landuse=residential areas)

Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect property 
rights and may remove them?

That is ridiculous.

but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do
remain in a natural state, while distinctly and presently "having"
residential landuse.

For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a clearly 
incorrect mapping.



Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers - that does not 
mean they are not parks because of the land cover.


I would contend similar consideration by held for residential landuse.

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

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

[Warin]

On 5/6/20 10:06 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

And you are missing

(1) word "mainly"
(2) "Note: Two values of landuse=* may be view as not strictly land use.
   These are landuse=grass and landuse=forest. Please refer to the 
pages

   of these for more information."



As usual I disagree with  both those misuse of the key landuse.

The value landuse=forest should not be used for any tree covered area 
... use the existing value natural=wood for that, even if 'managed'.


See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for more discussion on 
this topic.



-

Grass misuse is historical. It can also be tagged landcover=grass.


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:

I need to reopen this thread.

 I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the 
razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been 
replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one 
of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been 
conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former 
railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and 
for that reason should be in OSM.



As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a 
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.


If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no longer 
exist.


Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses, 
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that should be 
in OSM yet people map it...


A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old 
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.





.


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jack Armstrong]

From: Volker Schmidt  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
The wiki page seems reasonable to me.The last sentences, "Overall, mapping such features is acceptable where some remains like embankments, remains of bridges etc remain. Where it was replaced by new buildings and roads the mapping of such features becomes out of scope for OpenStreetMap."The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in the world today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades ago. If there is something that remains of a previous railroad, then it can be mapped in some way. If there is nothing remaining of what used to be a railroad, it should be out-of-scope.A historian will see the world as it used to exist.An OSM user should see the world as it is today.- Jack Armstrongchachafish

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Volker Schmidt]

I need to reopen this thread.

We have not arrived at a consensus so far in this talk,
Nevertheless the wiki page Demolished_Railway
 was completely
rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by Mateusz Konieczny

In particular the wording
" Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road
alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out
of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if
mapped"
in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking
about, but had not agreed upon.
This rewrite in the middle of an inclusive discussion on the main aspect of
the page seems to me not correct. As far as I remember (I may not have read
all the contributions in all details) we did not talk about rewriting that
page. I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of
the more fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and
it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and for
that reason should be in OSM.

Volker

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 16:56, Cornelis via Tagging 
wrote:

> I would like to add another interesting one. A railway that never has
> been finished completely, but you can clearly see it on the map,
> nonetheless: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/51.0885/6.6486
> Most of it is still visible, not only in the bigger picture. It's build
> as embarkment in large parts so you can easily recognize it. There still
> are several bridges crossing it. Short parts of the railway are named as
> „Strategischer Bahndamm“ (using highway=track and a name tag), but there
> is no complete relation for it or even the part between Neuss and
> Rommerskirchen from which the name is derived.
> For further information you may consult this wiki artice:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Railway_Embankment
>
> Maybe this one even serves as example for an old railway that in fact
> should be mapped to explain these clearly visible features that
> otherwise would lack an explanation?
>
> Best regards
> Cornelis
>
> Am 04.06.20 um 06:19 schrieb Mark Wagner:
> > On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:24:45 +0200 (CEST)
> > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
> >
> >> Jun 3, 2020, 07:03 by mark+...@carnildo.com:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
> >>> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
> >>>
>  Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com:
> 
> >
> > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> >
> > 寫道：
> >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> >>   > My main point is that out there are things that consist of
> >>   > visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces,
> >>   > and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of
> >>   > which we have documented knowledge of where they once were.
> >>   > The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These
> >>   > things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and
> >>   > hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them,
> >>   > should find space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any
> >>   > mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not
> >>   > see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be
> >>   > removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its
> >>   > partsmakes sense.
> >>
> >>
> >>   Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> >> (historical) information in OSM.
> >>
> >>   The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> >>
> > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that
> > cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be
> > removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each
> > individual cases.
>  Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was
>  constructed over former railway and this section of railway
>  remains somehow mappable in OSM?
> 
>  With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
>  can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> 
>  But entire factory?
> 
> >>> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage
> >>> rental facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and
> >>> about forty city blocks of other thi

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Lines management - Voting

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

This little reminder is about the voting stage of Line management proposal
which ends tomorrow evening.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management

20 people already took time to give their opinion, which is comparable to
the previous Line attachment proposal last year. Thank you.
Feel free to complete the list if you want to.

All the best

François

Le ven. 22 mai 2020 à 23:18, François Lacombe  a
écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> The RFC on Lines management proposal is now over and here starts the vote
> for 15 days.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management
>
> As explained previously, it's the second stage of tower:type refinement
> project for power/utility supports.
> The point is to document particular situations of lines topology around
> their supports and free :type keys
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058
> Tagging has been mainly experienced on power lines but suitable on many
> other kinds if comparable topologies are found.
>
> Many discussions lead to valuable tagging solutions despite a very
> technical topic. Thank again to anyone involved in this.
> As shown on examples, it's about visible properties of power lines and
> obviously not a mandatory tagging.
> Don't be afraid about 12k object to edit, there are about dozen of
> millions of poles/towers remaining to map out there.
>
> Feel free to put your opinion about this proposal at the bottom of the
> page, all the best
>
> François
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Mateusz,

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 06:13:12PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Jun 4, 2020, 16:00 by vinc...@bergeot.org:
> 
> > Le 04/06/2020 à 15:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
> >
> >> You have right to use your own images, AFAIK there is also a special 
> >> permission
> >> for OSM mapping but otherwise images are owned by them.
> >>
> >
> > mapillary picture are CC-BY-SA, you can use pictures and download them 
> > without pay nothing.
> >
> Scroll down on https://www.mapillary.com/pricing to "Commonly asked questions"
> "Can I download image files?"
> 
> You can download thumbnails (up to 2048 pixels wide) of Mapillary public 
> imagery,
> and originals of images you've contributed yourself. If you have a 
> subscription to 
> Mapillary public imagery, you can use and access the imagery for commercial 
> use 
> through the Mapillary platform, integrations, and APIs. You will not be able 
> to 
> download original image files.
> 
> I have no idea how at at the same time Mapillary claims on the same page
> "Mapillary imagery is also available under an open license (CC BY-SA)."
> and offers "Use Mapillary public imagery" for 2000$/year (up to 25km of roads
> is free according to this page)

> Mapillary claims that it is not possible to download original images even if 
> you 
> are a paying customer.
> 
> Overall it leaves me even less interested in their project.

I guess downloading original images cant be done for legal reasons e.g.
privacy. Mapillary would only be allowed to publish images with
processing e.g. blurring faces, number plates etc. 

As a registered user i can access my originals. 

But my workflow is different. I changed to keep all images i upload. 
So in case Mapillary is going "belly up" i still have all my images
i still can use or reupload somewhere else. And i tried uploading
to openstreetcam aswell.

So - I am pretty clear about limits of Mapillary and i once wrote
my own toolchain to store and visualize and i could revive that.

I am still happy they exist and i uploaded 12+ images covering
1000km+ - I did systematic street overview images for the towns i 
care about mapping. I did it in 2014/15 and now refreshing.

I wished OSM would offer a similar service integrated into our
toolsets etc. As long as we dont have it we need to be thankful
somebody else has build a businessmodel which pays for the gigantic
storage and processing needed.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Following is more on topic than may be expected -
OSM Wiki is illustrated by images from Wikimedia Commons,
and thanks for all people who uploaded things there.

Jun 5, 2020, 09:14 by jan...@gmail.com:

> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 16:48 European Water Project <> 
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>>  Our goal is to move all our images to wikimedia commons. 
>>
>
> Aren't water fountains not notable enough for their database?
>
That is a common misconception. Note that basically all
images on the OSM Wiki are from Wikimedia Commons.

Wikipedia and Wikidata have notability requirements,
with WIkipedia having much stricter ones (but different across 
various language versions)

Wikimedia Commons has no notability requirements, see
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope

It is perfectly fine to upload things like that there.

For example, anything that can be ever added as image on any Wikipedia article
(even ones not yet written) is in scope, anything plausibly used for
any educational purpose is in scope.

See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
and it is quite broadly defined.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/11#%22realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose%22_-_how_broadly%2Fnarrowly_it_is_defined%3F

I asked whatever uploading images of bicycle parkings 
(that are certainly not notable) is OK

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stojaki_na_%C5%81obzowska_x_Biskupia.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stojaki_rowerowe_z_hulajnogami_przy_szkole_-_bis.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stojaki_rowerowe_z_hulajnogami_przy_szkole.JPG

"The three images above look good to me. I would suggest short
descriptions giving the location and maybe detailing closeness to
important places like universities, courts, theatres, etc, if those places
aren't in the images or the street location isn't well-known."

"Reasonable quality photographs of identified places are
very unlikely to be considered not in scope"

"I could recommend to add {{Location}} 
. In this case photos may 
be
useful for external map services like OpenStreetMap."

"Mateusz, scope is very broadly defined. Reasonable quality photos of
public places are generally considered to be in scope. So, please go
ahead and upload those photos. As mentioned above, photos considered
out-of-scope are generally "personal" photos, bad quality photos, or
photos of subjects that attract people not really interested in Commons
as a repository of educational content (i.e. porn)."

(BTW, even to be deleted as last mentioned category it still needs something
completely useless for educational purposes - Wikimedia Commons
hosts many pornographic images, after all there are also Wikipedia articles
on this topic)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

And you are missing

(1) word "mainly"
(2) "Note: Two values of landuse=* may be view as not strictly land use.
   These are landuse=grass and landuse=forest. Please refer to the pages
   of these for more information."

present on this page.

Jun 5, 2020, 10:49 by ravilac...@gmail.com:

>
> I think you are missing one point here, and that's the one we  have in 
> the landuse key wikipage:
>
>
> "Mainly used to describe the primary use of land by humans."
>
>
> If 2 or more uses, we should select the main one.
>
>
> For your example, you might add the forest with a landcover tag,  or, if 
> the main use of that inner forest is forestry rather than  farmland, a 
> relation would be the best solution.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Rafael.
>
> O 05/06/20 ás 01:43, Warin escribiu:
>
>> On 3/6/20 5:37 am, Florian Lohoffwrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For me overlapping natural or landuses are broken. An area can eitherbe a 
>>> natural=wood or a landuse=farmland. You cant include the samearea in two 
>>> types of usages or naturals.
>>>
>> You can.
>> Farm land here can have trees to shelter animals from wind/sun and also to 
>> provide a wildlife corridor/refuge.So an area of landuse=farmland with an 
>> inner or overlap of natural=wood can be correct. An area of landuse=farmland 
>> with any other landuse could be wrong. However some areas are used for more 
>> than one thing.  
>>
>>
>> ___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] Overlapping naturals

[Rafael Avila Coya]

I think you are missing one point here, and that's the one we have in 
the landuse key wikipage:


"Mainly used to describe the primary use of land by humans."

If 2 or more uses, we should select the main one.

For your example, you might add the forest with a landcover tag, or, if 
the main use of that inner forest is forestry rather than farmland, a 
relation would be the best solution.


Cheers,

Rafael.

O 05/06/20 ás 01:43, Warin escribiu:

On 3/6/20 5:37 am, Florian Lohoff wrote:


For me overlapping natural or landuses are broken. An area can either
be a natural=wood or a landuse=farmland. You cant include the same
area in two types of usages or naturals.

You can.
Farm land here can have trees to shelter animals from wind/sun and also to 
provide a wildlife corridor/refuge.
So an area of landuse=farmland with an inner or overlap of natural=wood can be 
correct.

An area of landuse=farmland with any other landuse could be wrong. However some 
areas are used for more than one thing.


___
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] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[European Water Project]

Hi Janko,

Thank you .. it is time to reduce our global reliance on single-use plastic
!  We are all ingesting 5 grams  each week .. in our fish, vegetables,
meat, and water  etc ...

The people at Mapillary with whom I spoke see huge value in single-snap
images - with many possible applications. They also expressed interest in
having more Mapillary images linked to OSM objects. On the other hand, it
seems that single-snap images are just not a current management priority
due to other more pressing priorities.   This could change !

One idea discussed with Edouardo Neerhut was the creation of a separate AWS
S3 repository for single-snap images which could be linked to OSM objects.
Maybe some sort of non-profit OSM/Mapillary JV could be envisaged to take
advantage of some of Mapillary's technology for blurring faces and license
plates ..  ?I have no idea where that idea will lead ..

Best regards,

Stuart



On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 09:17, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 16:48 European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While all three of them have shown enthusiasm, single-snap images are
>> just not a priority at this point for Mapillary.
>>
>
> This is interesting. Did they say that they don't prefer single-snap
> images in the database, or that they aren't planning to put any effort into
> developing single-snap software?
>
>  Our goal is to move all our images to wikimedia commons.
>>
>
> Aren't water fountains not notable enough for their database?
>
> I love your project!
>
> Janko
>
>> ___
> 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] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[Janko Mihelić]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 16:48 European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> While all three of them have shown enthusiasm, single-snap images are just
> not a priority at this point for Mapillary.
>

This is interesting. Did they say that they don't prefer single-snap images
in the database, or that they aren't planning to put any effort into
developing single-snap software?

 Our goal is to move all our images to wikimedia commons.
>

Aren't water fountains not notable enough for their database?

I love your project!

Janko

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