Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

[Michael Patrick]

> Generally mapping bare ground beyond the specific established tags
mentioned earlier is often hard without local knowledge.  Imagery taken
during dry season will often read like bare ground while there is often
fairly extensive plant growth (like natural=grassland) that dries up and
looks indistinguishable from bare ground even on high resolution imagery.

The local, regional, or global Copernicus time series datasets are
specifically meant to overcome this.
https://land.copernicus.eu/global/products/

"The Water Bodies product detects the areas covered by inland water along
the year providing the maximum and the minimum extent of the water surface
as well as the seasonal dynamics. The area of water bodies is identified as
an Essential Climate Variable (ECV) by the Global Climate Observing System
(GCOS)."

The global ones are built of higher resolution datasets with variable
accessibility. Like the JRC’s Global Surface Water (MWE-GSW) Dataset at
https://global-surface-water.appspot.com/map ... "...location and temporal
distribution of water surfaces at the global scale over the past 3.6
decades, and provides statistics on their extent and change ..."

I did a cursory look-see at several places in the Western U.S. Basin and
Range region using only the ROI preview capability in the portal ,
especially Sevier Lake in Utah ( most of these 'lakes' tend to be of a
single type, though ) . In combination with other Copernicus and NASA
datasets one can get a fair idea what's going on.

Your mileage may vary.

Michael Patrick



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Is it bicycle_parking=stands?

[Yaro Shkvorets]

I've been mapping those as a `bicycle_parking=bollard` since it has one
point of contact with the floor.
The one tag I find super-confusing from the wiki is
`bicycle_parking=wall_loops` since it's rarely attached to the wall. Should
be named `wheel_loops` really.

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 6:54 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> In use it is a bicycle parking stand, you
> can attach a bicycle by frame,
> frame is supported.
>
> But it is not in a traditional reversed U
> shape, but rather in O shape
>
>
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABicycle_parking_-_stand_in_ring_form.jpg
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Best Regards,
  Yaro Shkvorets
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it bicycle_parking=stands?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 06:52, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
> In use it is a bicycle parking stand, you
> can attach a bicycle by frame,
> frame is supported.
>
> But it is not in a traditional reversed U
> shape, but rather in O shape
>
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABicycle_parking_-_stand_in_ring_form.jpg

Hello,

In Toronto we've mapped a similar thing but with a smaller ring as
bicycle_parking=bollard, but I am a bit dissatisfied with that since
it's called "post and ring" locally which seems a bit more specific.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6034796623 for example. They look
like 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bike_path_on_College_in_Toronto.jpeg,
either perpendicular or parallel to street.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Is it bicycle_parking=stands?

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

bollard ?

Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 12:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> In use it is a bicycle parking stand, you
> can attach a bicycle by frame,
> frame is supported.
>
> But it is not in a traditional reversed U
> shape, but rather in O shape
>
>
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABicycle_parking_-_stand_in_ring_form.jpg
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Is it bicycle_parking=stands?

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi,

the wiki [0] said for the tag "bicycle_parking=stands":

"Use this tag for non-rectangular stands as well (e.g. round ones, fancy
artistic ones, long ones allowing to attach more than two vehicles). "

Sounds to me like your O-shaped frame is a stand. I also already mapped
frames similar to the one in your example as stands.

Hauke

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking

On 05.07.20 12:52, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> In use it is a bicycle parking stand, you
> can attach a bicycle by frame,
> frame is supported.
> 
> But it is not in a traditional reversed U
> shape, but rather in O shape
> 
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABicycle_parking_-_stand_in_ring_form.jpg
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



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

[Tagging] Is it bicycle_parking=stands?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

In use it is a bicycle parking stand, you
can attach a bicycle by frame,
frame is supported.

But it is not in a traditional reversed U
 shape, but rather in O shape

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABicycle_parking_-_stand_in_ring_form.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

[Christoph Hormann]

Generally speaking you touch a field where established tagging in OSM has gaps. 
 A few notes on that:

We have established and usually quite consistently used tags for a number of 
fairly specific natural or semi-natural non-vegetated surfaces - 
natural=bare_rock, natural=scree, natural=shingle, natural=sand and natural=mud 
and more specifically in coastal environments natural=beach, natural=shoal, 
natural=reef and natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat.  It would therefore be 
rather counterproductive to introduce a new umbrella tag engrossing those like 
natural=bare_ground.

We have missing tags for bare ground of fine or undifferentiated material.  
natural=till has occasionally been suggested for undifferentiated glacial 
debris.  For any new tag a verifiable definition would be the main problem.

Dry lakebeds are unfortunately tagged quite inconsistently in OSM.  The 
following variants are the most common in my experience:

* natural=wetland - this is almost universally wrong since most dry or 
intermittent lakes only feature a water saturated but not water covered ground 
for a very short time of the year and are otherwise water covered 
(natural=water) or dry.  That disqualifies them as wetlands.
* natural=mud - usually wrong for the same reasons.
* natural=wetland + water=lake + intermittent=yes (and possibly salt=yes) - 
this is usually right in case there is regular or at least frequent verifiable 
water cover.

We lack a suitable tag for dry lakes with no verifiable presence of water 
(where there is either no present day water cover or so sporadic or incomplete 
that it is not practically verifiable).  There are a lot of options for tags 
for these but most of them have their quirks.

Generally mapping bare ground beyond the specific established tags mentioned 
earlier is often hard without local knowledge.  Imagery taken during dry season 
will often read like bare ground while there is often fairly extensive plant 
growth (like natural=grassland) that dries up and looks indistinguishable from 
bare ground even on high resolution imagery.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jul 2020, at 11:27, Michael Montani  wrote:
> 
> What are you thoughts? Have you ever needed or thought about how to address 
> this issue? Which tags would you use / propose (if needed) to map ground?


there is natural=bare_rock for some cases, generally I would go with landcover 
tags. Knowing the composition of the material would be interesting to 
understand what to expect when it is wet.

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

[Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

[Michael Montani]

Dear all,

when mapping landcover and landuse in OSM, it may be possible sometimes to find 
areas in which ground is compacted without any vegetation like in these 
pictures [1], 
[2], 
[3], 
[4] (scale in 
filename). We have some doubts on how to approach those areas for several 
reasons:

  *   It doesn't seem to us that universally accepted or even proposed tag of 
groundy places exists. By the way it may be useful to know where an area is 
groundy e.g. for off-road navigation. Some illegal 
natural=land seems to be 
there, but maybe it could be worth considering to do a tag proposal of
 *   Key: natural or landcover
 *   Values: ground, bare_ground, soil, bare_soil, land
 *   Frankly, a natural=ground seems the most reasonable to me
  *   It doesn't seem reasonable to consider default ground a blank map, 
otherwise many areas of the world would be bare ground, or we should cope with 
the idea that this is necessary otherwise.
  *   We would feel unconfident to use 
natural=scrub or 
natural=grassland 
in those areas...
  *   Some areas as these 
pictures
 could be tagged as intermittent wetlands, which makes sense in some particular 
areas with rainy and dry seasons in Africa. But not all the groundy places 
without vegetation are wetlands, like deserts. Actually an abandoned tag 
proposal 
natural=desert 
is there, but I think most of the sandy deserts are mapped with 
natural=sand and 
natural=dune even 
though other materials are there for deserts.
  *   Another way worth considering could be to use 
surface=* which is 'Originally 
concerned about the surface in relation to transport and sports and more 
commonly used on linear features it is now increasingly used with certain areas 
of type natural=*' according 
to the wiki. By the way this is an additional tag, so I think it can be dirty 
to use it to map ground.

What are you thoughts? Have you ever needed or thought about how to address 
this issue? Which tags would you use / propose (if needed) to map ground?

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 
3297193455 | Intermission: 158 6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org | 
www.ungsc.org



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