Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous, sacred / ceremonial sites

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 22:34:55 +0100
From: Paul Allen 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of
indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites


On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:


haven’t we written somewhere in our terms that the information isn’t
reliable? I’m quite sure we have. Some people have to be told that coffee
is hot, kittens must not be dried in the microwave and map data may contain
errors.


Sadly, yes, some people do have to be told these things.  Or, to state it
more precisely, many
companies find it necessary to place warnings of such things on their
products to avoid being
sued in court.  AGAIN.  That's why we have so many warning labels in our
daily lives, telling
us not to do things that the vast majority of us would never think of doing.

We may state that the information isn't reliable, but I don't see that as
an excuse to map things
incorrectly.  It's an admission that we make mistakes, not a licence to
deliberately mis-map.

One person in this thread claimed, incorrectly, that there are no access
restrictions to religious
structures and that it is not possible to determine if somebody meets the
restrictions he said
don't exist.  Such restrictions do exist and the penalties for contravening
them can be harsh.
Very harsh.

I see no reason to disallow something like access=adherents and every
reason to adopt
it.  Even if you think it completely unnecessary, it's not doing any harm
if it represents the
actual situation on the ground better than having access=yes,
access=private or no
access tag at all.  It doesn't conflict with any other tagging, and doesn't
break the
semantics of the access=* tag.


[...]

I agree with access=adherents if used as a default, in the event you 
don't know any different.  Access=yes would apply I think to most 
churches in the United States, as anyone is welcome to enter.  I know 
that's the case for my church.


Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:40:09 +0100
From: Topographe Fou 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along


Hi,

Personnaly I already use amenity=* for the whole plot/complex when it's clear 
it is not limited to a building. This apply to schools, hospitals and places of 
worship (not exhaustive list) in my way of tagging. I believe this is how 
schools and hospitals are suggested to be mapped and see no exception with 
places of worships. I don't see a need for religion-based way of tagging 
(amenity=place_of_worship schema shall be used the same for any religion).

So yes I agree with you that places of worship are not always limited to a 
building (same for a school, an hospital...).

Yours,

LeTopographeFou



I second that.

Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 17:12:33 -0800
From: Michael Patrick 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch
A survey of international and some national lexicons indicates that the two
terms 'ditch' and 'drain' are equivalent used in the context of liquids
from the smallest to largest scales.

The term 'drain' however seems mostly to apply at the interface where the
water transitions from the substrate ( soil ) to free running water, down
flow from that the water is 'channeled' through ditches, fluves, shutes,
spillways, canals, and a multitude of functional confinements. One of the
earliest ( 1920 ) legal references to British and American law notes this
equivalence, and the following an extract from a 2017 global standard
saying basically the same thing.


[...]



Local terminology takes precedence, at the highest level it is available.

While a dictionary might be a useful start for determining a meaning, there
is almost always some better source of definitions in a specific domain,
culture, and region, and location. The U.N., E.U., U.K., Scotland, and down
to Renfrewshire all have documentation of what terms mean in those local
contexts, for example.

Almost always, a single word will be immediately overloaded when used world
wide.Human languages have compound words, adjectives, verbs and adverbs for
a reason, and tagging schemes have equivalents.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret



Michael, thank you for your extensive and instructive research.

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:49:54 +0100
From: Peter Elderson 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch


Who is to decide?

Mvg Peter Elderson


Op 2 feb. 2019 om 15:38 heeft EthnicFood IsGreat  
het volgende geschreven:



Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100
From: Hufkratzer 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch


If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
immense that it is worth the effort?

[...]


This goes to the very core of the tagging policy of OSM.  The current state of OSM tags 
is a screwed up mess.  Because we are "prohibited" from going back in time and 
correcting bad tagging decisions that were made in the past, we are stuck with trying to 
shoehorn new tag definitions into a chaotic, disorganized system. The way I see it, if we 
were allowed to conduct mass edits to revise poorly-planned tagging choices, we would 
save ourselves a lot of trouble in the long run.  It would be painful at first, adjusting 
to the changes, but I think it would be worth it.  Don't we all agree that if we were 
starting all over from scratch, we would give a lot more thought to tagging?

Mark




Ha ha, that would be the topic of a whole other discussion.

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100
From: Hufkratzer 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch


If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
immense that it is worth the effort?

[...]



This goes to the very core of the tagging policy of OSM.  The current 
state of OSM tags is a screwed up mess.  Because we are "prohibited" 
from going back in time and correcting bad tagging decisions that were 
made in the past, we are stuck with trying to shoehorn new tag 
definitions into a chaotic, disorganized system. The way I see it, if we 
were allowed to conduct mass edits to revise poorly-planned tagging 
choices, we would save ourselves a lot of trouble in the long run.  It 
would be painful at first, adjusting to the changes, but I think it 
would be worth it.  Don't we all agree that if we were starting all over 
from scratch, we would give a lot more thought to tagging?


Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 11:20:01 +0100
From: Sergio Manzi 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch


Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.

Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading 
English words with meanings they do not have in *any *dictionary (be it AmE, 
BrE, CaE, or whatever).

Both the "ditch" and "drain" words *can *be used to describe certain features in 
English. The difference is essentially an etymological one, with one related to the *process *of 
excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other to the *function *of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).

If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we should do 
it explicitly through a *correct data model* that takes into consideration the 
particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want to communicate the 
information that a (small) waterway is lined with concrete? Just say that with 
an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or lining=*. We want to communicate the 
information that a (small) waterway is used to carry waste water away? Once 
again, let's say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. usage=* (/please 
ignore if the specific tags I put in the examples are not of your liking: not 
the point here, let's discuss that later.../).

Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the common 
language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in information.

Sergio

[...]


I tend to agree.  Sometimes I feel these endless debates on trying to decide 
the meaning of tags is like reinventing the wheel (reinventing the definition).

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:07:00 +0300
From: Eugene Podshivalov 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch


The direct images got blocked. So here are the links.

Drainage ditches:
https://ak2.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/32964022/thumb/12.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Drainage_Ditch_at_New_Eskham_Farm_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1170959.jpg

Drains:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Lake_tahoe_storm_drain_el_dorado_beach_2.jpg
http://councillordiane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/stormdrain.jpg
http://mechanicsburgborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/STORMSEWER.jpg

[...]



I would not call picture #4 a drain.  Maybe in a very general sense.  
The part carrying the water is more specifically called a "gutter" (at 
least in the US), and the structure the water is draining into is called 
an "inlet."  And I would call picture #5 a "culvert."  There is already 
an established tag for that.


Mark




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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:15:41 +0300
From: Eugene Podshivalov 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

ср, 30 янв. 2019 г. в 13:02, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:


Large means?
Small means?

To me I'd use small = I can step over it, large means I cannot step over
it .. so ~1.1 metres is the line between the two.


Drains and ditches can be 0.1 to 5 metres wide. You can hardly step over a
2-5 metre wide ditch, can you? Anything greater than that can be called a
canal.
So I would leave this up to the user to decide on.

Cheers,
Eugene


ср, 30 янв. 2019 г. в 13:04, Joseph Eisenberg :


Those descriptions look good
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:58 PM Eugene Podshivalov 
wrote:


Here is a summary of the discussion to check if there is a consensus.

Current definitions of artificial waterways are unclear and ambiguous.
Some people assume that ditch and drain differ mainly in size, others
differentiate them mainly on liquid type (can or cannot carry industrial
discharge), others rely on lined or unlined characteristic.

It is suggested to resolve the ambiguities by updating the definitions as
follows.

canal - Large man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways used
to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation,
irrigation or land drainage purposes. Consider using waterway=ditch for
small irrigation or land drainage channels. Consider using waterway=drain
for small usually lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

drain - Small artificial free flow waterways usually lined with concrete
or similar used for carrying away superflous liquid like rain water or
industrial discharge without letting it soak into the ground. Consider
using waterway=ditch for unlined channels used to drain nearby wet land.
Consider using waterway=canal for large unlined land drainage channels.

ditch - Small artificial free flow waterways used for irrigating dry land
or draining wet land. Irrigation ditches can be lined or unlined, drainage
ditches are usually unlined to let water soak through the land into them.
Ditches may have short lined segments at waterway turning points or
intersections with roads or paths to prevent erosion. Consider using
waterway=canal for large irrigation or land drainage channels. Consider
using waterway=drain for usually lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

Cheers,
Eugene

вт, 29 янв. 2019 г. в 18:32, marc marc :


Le 29.01.19 à 16:13, Eugene Podshivalov a écrit :

How to we proceed with this topic? Should a proposal be created or the
wiki pages can be updated straight away by someone or myself based on
this discussion?

maybe it's a good idea to write a small-summary-only post
to check if there is a consensus on this, because there are probably
many participants who have dropped out given the number of emails that
the subject has generated
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



So it sounds like we're using the word "stream" for all natural 
waterways smaller than a river.  This can mean anything from something 
small enough to step across to something several meters across.  Is 
there no other choice of words that can be used to differentiate these 
waterways based on size?  Wouldn't it be desirable for renderers to 
differentiate "major" and "minor" streams differently?  I don't think 
relying on a width tag is a good idea, because it's easier for mappers 
to simply choose between two words to tag one of these waterways rather 
than estimate and assign a width tag.


Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Appropriate tagging for Redbox vending machines

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 23:27:04 +
From: Silent Spike 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: [Tagging] Appropriate tagging for Redbox vending machines


While looking to add appropriate "vending" tags into the name suggestion
index project  I came
across a US based Redbox vending machine brand.

I'm across the globe so not familiar with it personally, but reading the
wikipedia page  it seems to dispense
DVD and Blu-ray rentals. Unfortunately there's no clear "vending" tag for
this (the OSM wiki page
) so I
wanted to gather thoughts here as to what would be most appropriate (and
perhaps formalise this on the wiki).

Using overpass turbo I queried all the Redbox vending machines tagged with
"vending" and the most common value (57 occurrences) is "vending=dvd".
While this seems pretty appropriate, it's also not entirely accurate as it
sounds like they also provide blu-ray rentals (plus they can be movies or
games). All other values are variations of "movies", "media", "video_games"
or lists combining these.

However, there's also the question as to whether "vending" is even the
correct tag to use. An OSM help question from November 2012

on
this very subject receives a suggestion to use the "rental" tag instead (0
results using overpass turbo for Redbox machines with this tag).

Any thoughts are appreciated!



I think "rental" is more accurate.

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:49:56 +1000
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:35, Marc Gemis  wrote:


A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
of a trail yet.


Wikipedia: A *trail* is usually a *path*, *track* or unpaved lane or road.

In Australia, the term *track* can be used interchangeably with trail, and
can refer to anything from a dirt road
 to an unpaved pedestrian path
.



An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
interpretation correct ?


Frequently, but not always!

Yes, they often are long (& sometimes *very* long!) but can also be quite
short - ~300m?

Same thing for "wilderness" - yes, frequently, but not always.



Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).


Maybe not disappointed, but possibly surprised (?) at how small & cramped
everything is, in the same way that you would be shocked / amazed by what
you found here! :-)

Thanks

Graeme



Don't forget rail trails, which are sometimes paved.  According to 
Wikipedia, for those of you that like to refer to it as a standard, 
these are a type of trail.  And they have trailheads.


Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:08:30 +
From: ael 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:45:21PM +, Paul Allen wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 21:24, EthnicFood IsGreat <
ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:

   I have been tagging them as drains, because they

are too small to be called a stream, and they are not artificial, so
they are not ditches.  (At least in the OSM sense.)


You appear to be talking about small streams.  Which are, as far as OSM is
concerned, just
streams.  Using either drain or ditch for a natural stream, even a small
one, is tagging for the
renderer.

+1  There is no lower limit on the size of a stream in British English,
although something smaller than say, I don't know, 1O cm, might be
called a "trickle" informally.



Okay ael, Paul, and Joseph, it's clear I have not been applying tags 
using OSM's definitions.  Sorry.


Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:30:56 +0100
From: Peter Elderson 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging


I have added parking space, not as a requirement but as something that will
usually be available. The only requirement is that the place is visibly
designated or customary to hop on a trail.


[...]

Thanks!

Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:32:04 -0500
From: Kevin Kenny 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch


On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:05 PM EthnicFood IsGreat
 wrote:

Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
stream?

The Wiki says that a stream is small enough to be stepped over, but
gives no lower bound.

I can't think of many permanent watercourses around here that are
small enough to step over. Rock-hop, usually. Sometimes wade. I
personally don't switch from 'waterway=stream' to 'waterway=river'
until I'm telling myself that I might someday want to map the banks.

You can rock-hop https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/21811867291 in a
dry season if you're more coordinated than I am (I wound up with boots
full of water), but at 30 m across it's still a river. In springtime
that crossing is completely impassable.



The wiki description of a stream surprises me.  I always thought of a 
stream as something too big to step over.  In the area where I live, 
smaller waterways are sometimes called "ditches" (even if they're 
natural), and sometimes they're called "drains."  There is even such a 
thing as a "legal drain," which carries certain restrictions and 
requirements.


Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:11:20 +
From: Paul Allen 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 18:05, EthnicFood IsGreat <
ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:


Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
stream?

Two possibilities.

1) A stream.

2) Not worth mapping.

Take your pick. :)

--
Paul



Well, call it micromapping if you want, but I've mapped many of these in 
the midwestern US.  I do most of my mapping in the country, and 
sometimes these are the only features to map in a certain area without 
the map being blank.  I have been tagging them as drains, because they 
are too small to be called a stream, and they are not artificial, so 
they are not ditches.  (At least in the OSM sense.)  Many of them start 
out as being just a swale in a farmer's field, where they are usually 
intermittent.  Many of them are named.


Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:38:13 +0300
From: Eugene Podshivalov 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch


Can you jump over a drain or ditch? I find the jump over information well
chosen for streams and most important property when actually walking in an
area and trying to find a way through.

In the place where I live drainage ditches are 1-5 meters wide and you can
hardly jump over them. Even if they are 1m wide you would not risk jumping
over them because they are located in wetland and have swampy banks. They
usually have a lot of culverts to cross them over.

Somehow it is not satisfactory to distinguish irrigation from drainage for

lined watercourses on the main level

You are right, irrigation ditches can be lined along their way to a field
but when on a field they may be unlined to let water soak into the land.
Drainage ditches are always unlined because they collect water from land.
Drains are always lined (or should be lined on good terms) because they
carry liquid away without letting it soak into the ground.
If you find the above statements correct (I don't know, may be in other
countries it works differently), then the "lined" characteristic lets you
distingish between drainage ditches and drains easily. The only thing we
need to resolve yet is to let irrigation ditches be linied. Here is how we
can complement the definition of ditch to respect this.

ditch - Small artificial free flow waterways used for irrigating or
draining land as well as for deviding land. Irrigation ditches can be lined
or unlined, drainage ditches are usually unlined. Consider using
waterway=canal for large irrigation or land drainage channels. Consider
using waterway=drain for lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

PS: I'm not a native English speaker, so probably someone could formulate
it in a more beautiful way.

Cheers, Eugene

[...]



I'm glad your definition does not require ditches be unlined.  In the US 
we have many highway ditches that are unlined, except for the steepest 
part, typically where they empty into a stream. These areas are 
sometimes lined with concrete to prevent erosion. If I were to map one 
of these, I would consider the whole thing a ditch.  I would not 
consider part of it a "drain," simply because it's lined.


Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:06:57 +0700
From: Dave Swarthout 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch


Sounds good, Eugene. I like those descriptions.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:41 PM Eugene Podshivalov 
wrote:


=drain

suggested: Use waterway
=drain for artificial
waterways , typically
lined with concrete or similar, usually used to carry water for drainage
or irrigation purposes.

=ditch
suggested: Use waterway
=ditch for simple
narrow artificial waterways
, typically unlined,
usually used to remove storm-water or similar from nearby land. Ditches
are usually straight (as opposed to natural streams). They may contain
little water or even be dry most of the year – to mark this intermittent
=yes may be used.


I don't know if that was done on purpose of by mistake but these
definitions are mixed up a bit. It is ditches that are used for irrigation,
not drains.
I would suggest to define them as follows.

canal - large man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways used
to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation,
irrigation or land drainage purposes. consider using waterway=ditch for
small irrigation or land drainage channels. consider using waterway=drain
for small lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

drain - small artificial free flow waterways usually lined with concrete
or similar used for carrying away superflous liquid like rain water or
industrial discharge. consider using waterway=ditch for unlined channels
used to drain nearby land. consider using waterway=canal for large unlined
land drainage channels.

ditch - small artificial free flow unlined waterways used for irrigating
or draining land as well as for deviding land. consider using
waterway=canal for large irrigation or land drainage channels. consider
using waterway=drain for lined superflous liquid drainage channels.

No need to introduce any new tags.

Eugene

ср, 16 янв. 2019 г. в 05:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:


On 16/01/19 11:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 10:28, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:


Although the 1st definition sort of agrees with your usage, the common
definition in the U.S. is closer to the other two. There are several other
definitions given but most of them are similar to those two. So it will be
a bit confusing to use here in the U.S.


Now why does that amaze me! :-)

irrigation channel: a passage
 dug
 in the
ground 
  and used 
  for bringing
 water
 to land
 in order
 to make
 plants
 grow




OSM gives a distinction between river and stream.
There should be a similar distinction between 'drain' etc.
It should not be base on the flow of water as that could be hard to
determine - especially if the water is off when mapping.

For example, 'a drain can be easily stepped over'?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com



Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a 
stream?


Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:04:23 +0700
From: Dave Swarthout 
To: Peter Elderson 
Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging


Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:


I made a concept wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
comment.

I don't want to change the earlier proposal, it is a step further than my
concept tagging page which just documents existing practice.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 15 jan. 2019 om 00:41 schreef Dave Swarthout <
daveswarth...@gmail.com>:


Kevin said:
I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
begin or end a trip on a trail.'

Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.

Dave

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:


On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:


Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
along miles of trail.


Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!

Thanks

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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com



A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers you 
mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, flag, 
etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your vehicle.  I 
would like your wiki page better if you included a designated parking 
area in the list of possible identifiers.


Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:54:35 +0100
From: Peter Elderson 
To: Tagging list OSM 
Subject: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging


I would like to revive the trailhead proposal,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead

After discussions in the Dutch user community, a list of all Dutch
trailheads was compiled and systematically entered as nodes tagged
highway=trailhead, name=, tourism=information,
information=board or map. Many trailheads were already present in OSM,
there we just did some additional tagging.

In the US, trailheads are all maintained on OSM by a national operator.
Japan has lots of trailheads, I don't know how they are maintained. In
Europe, no systematical OSM-tagging appears to take place, except for the
Dutch base.

I think it deserves a push.

Any thoughts on the matter?

--
Vr gr Peter Elderson



Go for it.  I've tagged a bunch of trailheads but not in a standard way 
like you propose.  Good idea.


Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospatial database?

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 21:57:14 +0100
From: Wolfgang Zenker 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

* Eugene Podshivalov  [181209 12:34]:

вс, 9 дек. 2018 г. в 14:10, Marc Gemis :

We have tags for that (waterway=stream, ditch, ... / amenity=school,
college, university, kindergarten), I don't understand why we should
change the usage of name for that.

How would you map American "streamlet", "brook", "creek" and "river" to the
two generic "stream" and "river" in OSM?
Currently they are just putting in the name field, so the only ways to fide
all "brooks" is by searching the name fields which is not a proper database
approach.

Most probably you would not want to look for all "brooks", because
"brook" is just one of multiple words that mean the same thing. There is
no semantic difference between a "brook" and a "stream" in general
nowadays. Its just that in different regions of the english speaking
world different words were commonly used, and people in America used
whatever word they were familiar with.

Wolfgang
( lyx @ osm )


So true.

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] Follow-Up Proposal - voting ended - (Tramtrack, on highway)

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Me too!

Mark



Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 22:52:51 +0100
From: Jo 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Follow-Up Proposal - voting ended - (Tramtrack
on  highway)

I look forward to a new vote and will vote in favour of what you're
proposing now.

Polyglot

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM Nikulainen, Jukka K <
jukka.nikulai...@helsinki.fi> wrote:


Hello Paul, and thank you for your input!

You are indeed correct that my follow-up proposal would very radically cut
corners and be, to say the least, unorthodox. I'm certainly sorry if it
offended the sensibilities of anyone.

I can see now that it could be construed as malicious and you are
certainly right that implementing a new vote on a new proposal would not be
an excessive amount of work.

Indeed, doing a new proposal and a new vote seems the right thing to do,
and I'll get to it soon!

Please let me explain the rationale my odd follow-up proposal, as a few
lines in your response did catch my eye:


1) Your analysis is correct. The new proposal would meet with universal

acclaim and pass unanimously.

I don't quite understand how you could possibly have reached the
conclusion that I would expect "universal acclaim" or unanimity, from
anything that I've written in the follow-up. It seems to me painstakingly
obvious that neither would ensue, judging only from the opposing votes and
critical comments on the original proposal.

Furthermore, responding to your second point, I was not aware that
"universal acclaim" was required for a proposal to pass as you suggest. At
least the proposal process wiki page seems to say otherwise. But of course
I could just be moronically illiterate, in which case: mea maxima culpa!

I would also argue that my follow-up proposal isn't based on blitheness.
Rather it is based on the sixteen approving votes on the original proposal
and the quite acute and perceptive critical comments they contained and
conveyed. Nor is expediency alone my motivation (though I must admit, it is
a consideration too).

I, rather, worry whether enough people will be interested to vote again on
a similar proposal only with changed tag-values. Many of the interesting
critical comments and interested people in fact came forth only after
voting had started and the proposal could no longer be changed. It would be
a shame if the idea (which, again, _did_ garner support on the first round)
would be lost in the absence of interest on a second proposal and vote. But
maybe I just worry too much.

Sincerely,
Jukka Nikulainen (Tolstoi21)



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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:57:38 -0400
From: Greg Troxel 
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM Tag 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)


Graeme Fitzpatrick  writes:


A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external
access only

This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality.  guys are
needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that
are exactly like guyed masts but a bit shorter.


A tower is a tall, slim free-standing structure, usually with internal
access. (Possible include from wiki: "Towers are specifically distinguished
from "buildings " in that they are
not built to be habitable but to serve other functions.")

again towers can need guys if they are really tall (300m), even if they
are the same construction that would not need guys if only somewhat tall
(30m).   Guy wires do not make a tower not a tower, in the language of
antenna support structure.

Perhaps this is a UK vs US English thing, or a lay vs radio engineering
thing.  But your definitions (to a US engineering type) seem seriously
wrong.

Now, if you're coming at this from "tower is building that's mostly used
to get something high, and not for inhabitation" and "mast is an
antenna support structure that is not a building.  Note that things that
engineers call towers, such as structures made out of lattice like Rohn
65, are called masts in OSM because they are not buildings"  then I can
see that.  But in that case, there is no requirement for a mast to be
guyed.  I can certainly see a "guyed means not tower" in that world,
because buildings don't have guy wires.

For an example of something used in communications (an American thing,
but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things
with the same characteristics):

   http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower

which says right there can be up to 500 feet when guyed and 80 feet not
guyed.  But it's the same thing in both cases -- it just needs more
support when taller where the forces get bigger.

Around me, antenna support structures for cellular (mobile phones) are
typically 30' and I have never seen one guyed.  Some are tube-like
(because planning boards require that) and some are lattice.  But they
are not buildings -- they are antenna support structures that *maybe*
one person could climb inside of, but maybe not.  There are also antenna
support structures for TV, which are typically lattice and 300m tall,
and always guyed.  Everyone calls these towers.   To call the 30m ones
towers because they are not guyed and the 300m ones masts because they
are guyed makes zero sense in US English usage, either for the general
public or for engineers.

As I said earlier, things that are maybe 10cm in diameter are usually
called masts.  These are very minor and not really used in
telecom/broadcasting.

So maybe we just need

   man_made=antenna_support_structure

for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support
antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly
contentious and/or confusing.


Do we need to worry about height for rendering purposes? (which is what
this original discussion started from!) If so, would a simple break-down
into height >30 (m), 30-150, 150+ work?

I don't know why you are proposing classes of height. It seems like
speed limits and road width that we should have a height tag and people
should make their best estimate, and renderers can do what they think
sensible.  Adding some sort of bins for heights in the tagging scheme
seems like unnecessary complexity that brings no value.




+1 to all your points.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs and geysers

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:15:56 +1000
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
To: OSM Tag 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Hot springs and Geysers

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 09:44, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

There are now over 500 hot springs mapped with natural=hot_spring. The tag
was proposed way back in 2008 but the proposal was never approved. Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dhot_spring
Original proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring


Yep, sounds like a good idea



Some people have suggested tagging hot springs with natural=spring and a
spring=hot subtag, but hot springs have a quite different geological origin
and cultural significance. The wiki page for natural=spring has a link to
hot spring:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dspring


Agree that hot spring & spring=hot are different


Geysers are also tagged natural=geyser. They could be considered a type of
spring, but they are also similar to a fumarole or volcanic vent, and I
would be quite surprised to see a geyser mapped as a “spring”
Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dgeyser


Notice that they also suggested using hot spring for mud. I would think
that bubbling mud puddles would be a different thing again?


Thoughts on these tags? If natural=hot_springbkeeps climbing in use, we
could start rendering it on the Openstreetmap-Carto style (“standard
layer”) soon, if there is agreement on the tagging.


Thanks

Graeme




+1

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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

From: Kevin Kenny 
To: David Swarthout ,  "Tag discussion,
strategy and related tools" , bkil
, Mateusz Konieczny 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:34 AM bkil  wrote:


It seems many would find a short video tutorial depicting these steps very
handy. Would you mind sharing on Bitchute or on some other video hosting
site?


On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:00 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:


I was wishing that someone would write a short tutorial about relations,
the various concepts about tagging them, and problem solving when something
goes wrong with one. I have been unable to understand with any degree of
certainty how and why we create them, which is the reason I started this
thread and contributed to the other one about tagging groups of lakes. The
Wiki is helpful but leaves out a lot of details. A tutorial, video or
otherwise, would be extremely helpful.


On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 1:24 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:


Maybe improving wiki would be a good idea as the first [step].


I find that video tutorials don't often fit my learning style, so I don't
often use them and have never made one. Moreover, I'm an old man and
somewhat set in my ways. Nevertheless, they seem to be demanded, and if
nobody else steps forward, perhaps it will be possible to teach this old
dog that new trick.  I'd be willing to take a whack at a written tutorial,
but can't promise any particular time frame. Just at the moment, I'm
chronically busy.

[...]



If I were to take on this task (again, no guarantees about the time
frame), I could certainly address this issue with JOSM (and possibly
Meerkartor). I surely do not know Potlatch2, iD, or any other tool well
enough to manage anything but the simplest of relations in it, nor do I see
obvious things in the UI that would do what I need. It may well be
limitations of the tools, rather than limitations of knowledge and
training, that make people assert that relations are unmaintainable or that
drawing complex boundaries twice is easier than creating multipolygons with
shared ways. That last statement, however, may be nothing but a base libel
based on ignorance. In that case, I'm more than willing to be enlighened.
It would occasionally be handy to be able to make a quick change to a
multipolygon when I'm away from a machine that has my preferred tools and
simply working in a browser.


I would welcome a good reference on creating and editing relations. I 
understand the theory, but I've always wished for some good explanations 
of manipulating them in JOSM.


Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] historic=memorial tagging question

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:47:47 +0900
From: John Willis 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] historic=memorial tagging question


Thanks, but marker only has seven uses - stele has about 5000.

Also- Marker, to me, would be something you would find in the ground with a 
number or a pole with a number on it, or something based around a ref number or 
value of some sort (like a mile marker).

In the US, a "historical landmark" or "marker" is usually a plaque embedded in 
a pedestal or stone, so it is memorial=plaque, with about 10,000 uses.

^___^

Javbw

True, but I was reluctant to use "stele" because, according to 
Wikipedia, the word usually refers to ancient objects of archaeological 
interest.  And I doubt if many people in the US are familiar with that word.


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

Re: [Tagging] historic=memorial tagging question

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:20:32 +0900
From: John Willis 
To: strategy and related tools Tag discussion

Subject: [Tagging] historic=memorial tagging question.


How would I map this object?
https://www.machigururi.com/spot_detail.php?id=3762 


It is a stone tablet memorializing when a small levee failed and washed away 
part of a hamlet. This is in the park built on top of the levee repair.


these kinds of stone tablets - always a freestanding carved or etched stone 
(not a plaque attached to a rock), and usually between 50cm and 2m in height, 
are the most common form of memorial object in Japan (very tall, thin, cut 
stone tablets anchored in the ground, covered with carved letters - not a 
memorial=stone). this example is a more modern version, with very little text. 
older ones are covered with text. though it looks like a headstone or a grave, 
this is not a common shape for a grave marker in Japan - but for memorial 
tablets.

interestingly, the sub-tag of historic=memorial, memorial=*,  has a lot of 
suggested values in iD, including memorial - so memorial=memorial is a commonly 
tagged value (295 uses)!

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial 


to me, this is a tablet (20 uses), but if this object is better defined by 
another value, I would be happy to use it.

Javbw



I mapped something similar, and in the absence of a better description, 
I simply used memorial=marker.


Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:13:41 +0200
From: François Lacombe 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Le ven. 21 sept. 2018 à 09:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :


Ok .. thinking on it, if the word 'sewer' is confusing for 'native'
English speakers (and dictionaries) it may be best avoided within OSM.
So what word/s to use?
I would think storm_water and waste_water or stormwater and wastewater
might be reasonable values? However that does not name the pipe function.

Perhaps man_made=pipe would do? Then subtags for diameter, substance,
pressure etc.


We already have man_made=pipeline
It is only the nutshell, how the conduit is actually built, not what's
going inside. Substance=water is recommended and useful but not enough to
qualify the flow.
A pipeline may be opposed to tunnel. In the current situation it's
certainly a pipeline and not a tunnel.

[...]


I don't think "pipeline" is appropriate here.  My reasoning is the same 
that Martin Koppenhoefer expressed recently in another thread titled 
"Landuse for government offices?"  He said, "A lot of people have an 
adversity to making up new tags and prefer using established tags even 
if the meaning is not fitting perfectly for the thing they map, but this 
is harmful because it devalues/blurs the meaning of the established 
tag."  I think that fits here.  What I
 mean is, I think most people think of a pipeline as being 
pressurized.  If you include something under this heading that is not 
pressurized, I think it blurs the meaning of the tag "pipeline".  I 
think in this case a different tag is warranted.  If "sewer" is 
confusing, I like Warin's suggestion of man_made=pipe.


Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

From: Jonathon Rossi 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks everyone. Apologies in advance for the long reply.

@Graeme I see you tagged the node with
man_made=drain_outlet+substance=rainwater. In your example it makes sense
to map the underground pipe because you know exactly where it is, but I'd
hate for these to start rendering in the future and bits of incomplete
pipes (a few metres long) start showing up drawing over streets.

The wiki for man_made=pipeline
 says it is
meant for "major" pipelines, which these aren't really apply:

By using pipeline are we abusing that tag? Dictionary.com's definition of
pipeline also indicates that a network of pipes isn't a pipeline. I too
don't view the reticulated water network of pipes a pipeline, however there
would generally be a pipeline going from a water treatment plant to a water
reservoir/storage tank; and in the same way the network of sewerage drains
aren't a pipeline, but you could have a pressurised or gravity pipeline to
move sewage to a treatment plant.

Mark's suggestion to use man_made=sewer didn't sound right to me because I
always view sewers as for wastewater which must go to a treatment plant
before entering waterways. Dictionary.com seems to agree, the values for
manhole=*  also agree, this
OSM tagging proposal also agrees
,
however Wikipedia seems to indicate some people refer to stormwater drains
as sewers too, this might be a location thing because I found some
indication that some cities have a combined waste and rain water drain
(these obviously won't directly connect to a waterway).
substance=rainwater;sewage works though.

[...]


FWIW, I worked in the highway construction business for 14 years in the 
US.  In the industry terminology where I was, a "pipeline" carrying 
wastewater to a treatment plant was termed a sanitary sewer, and a 
pipeline carrying stormwater (rainwater) was called a storm sewer.


Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:15:37 +1000
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
To: OSM Tag 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 13:04, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:


I've come across the desire to map a stormwater outlet at the beginning of
a stream a few times now and have failed to find an appropriate tag to
place on the node.


Hi Jono

I did this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5213660838#map=19/-28.07783/153.42664
for one stormwater drain nearby.

Would that work for your purposes?

Unfortunately it doesn't render in any way, so there's nothing showing on
the map to indicate that there's anything there, until you go into edit
mode :-(

Thanks

Graeme
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:04:12 +1000
From: Andrew Harvey 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I agree with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5213660838

location=underground
man_made=pipeline
substance=rainwater

I think it's okay to place this on a node if you don't know the
location the pipeline goes underground, even if the tags were meant
for ways.

Personally I would just add a way a few meters long to the end of the
stream and tag that, instead of a node.

But I'd omit the name unless it has one, "Stormwater easement" is more
a description than a name.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 16:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:



On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 13:04, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

I've come across the desire to map a stormwater outlet at the beginning of a 
stream a few times now and have failed to find an appropriate tag to place on 
the node.


Hi Jono

I did this: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5213660838#map=19/-28.07783/153.42664 for 
one stormwater drain nearby.

Would that work for your purposes?

Unfortunately it doesn't render in any way, so there's nothing showing on the 
map to indicate that there's anything there, until you go into edit mode :-(

Thanks

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



--

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:32:54 +1000
From: Jonathon Rossi 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks Graeme.



I did this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5213660838#map=19/-28.07783/153.42664
for one stormwater drain nearby.


I don't quite understand the way extending to the north in your example
tagged just man_made=yes and surface=grass, is that the underground pipe
joining to the rest of the network?

Would that work for your purposes?
Regarding the node on the end, yes I think it should work. I always viewed
man_made=pipeline for legit big pressurised pipelines but I can't see any
harm using it for stormwater drains especially that some get really big.

man_made=pipeline
location=underground
substance=rainwater

The wiki page says man_made=pipeline shouldn't be applied to nodes but
there are already nearly 4000 so that can change, or if I have a decent
idea which way the underground pipes go (easy for the big ones) just map a
short way.

Thinking about how this would apply to other waterways I've mapped, I
currently map the streams or drains that pass under roads which rainwater
passes through like below, these are quite similar but with a completely
different tagging scheme.

waterway=drain or stream
tunnel=culvert
layer=-1

Do we use waterway=* where it is a naturally occurring stream but humans
earthfilled the location with a concrete culvert and put a road over the
top but that is still part of the earth's waterways of the creek system.
Can't be true because waterway=drain is for man made waterways.

This tagging also appears valid for a big stormwater drain where you can
walk into it:

waterway=drain
tunnel=flooded
location=underground
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dflooded)

Unfortunately it doesn't render in any way, so there's nothing showing on

the map to indicate that there's anything there, until you go into edit
mode :-(


I'm not too worried about rendering. In the past I've left a note on the
first node because these drain outlets usually can't be seen from aerial
imagery and many times the creek directly where it pours doesn't even look
like a creek from aerial imagery, so the intention was to capture the
information to ensure armchair mappers don't "fix" the creek.

As usual each time I post on the mailing list it opens a can of worms and I
learn too much about 

Re: [Tagging] Tagging religion-based access & on-topic

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:24:22 +0200
From: Rory McCann 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access & on-topic


[...]

And I think we can have a tagging discussion without mocking all
religions (not all of which believe in an afterlife BTW).

[...]




 +1

Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 105, Issue 26

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

    Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:29:25 +0200

From: Frederik Ramm 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a
top-level   tag

Hi,

it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call
for strong leadership to solve them once and for all. OSM is no exception.

On 08.06.2018 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:

I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a
brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.

Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw?
And if something turns out to be designed wrongly, how will it be
challenged?


Of course any system would have to have a means of making revisions, as 
better ways of tagging things become apparent over time.  There could 
still be innovation.





And I wouldn't mind if
these keys were enforced from now on.

Not having an enforced set of keys and values was definitely a big part
of OSM's success (there *were* competing projects which got stuck trying
to define the one true set of keys and values that would work for
everything).

Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to
get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to
something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not
convinced; a lot of innovation is still going on with tags, and strict
enforcement would run the risk of killing that.


Someone some time ago on one
of the OSM mailing lists summed up the current situation by stating, "It
seems OSM is incapable of moving forward."

OpenStreetMap is becoming a larger group of more diverse people with
more diverse interests, and since we don't - and don't aim to - have a
dictator at the top, things need to be done by consensus. These people
who take to the internet complaining about how OSM is incapable of
moving forward usually are people who are unwilling, or unable, to
convince the "great unwashed" their idea of "forward" is a good thing.
So they lament the lack of leadership and complain about "gatekeeping",
but it's really just them being unable to do the work required to
establish consensus in a large project.

Because that takes much more than a couple of blog posts (cf. the
license change).

Bye
Frederik




I have been editing in OSM for almost four years, and I've been a member 
of this mailing list almost since then.  I read every single post.  
During that time I have never seen what I would consider a consensus 
reached on anything.  I'm not sure it's even possible. Whenever someone 
proposes a way to tag something, you can be guaranteed that people will 
bring up every possible angle and nuance concerning the meaning of the 
tag, and nobody wants to compromise. Consequently there is never a 
consensus.  Eventually people get tired of the debate, when they see 
it's a no-win situation, and the debate just dies away, until somebody 
brings it up again next year. Case in point:  the current issue of 
landuse versus landcover. There was no consensus the last time this was 
brought up and there is none now.


I've seen several tags debated more than once in four years.  I can only 
assume that each time, a different group of people get drawn in to the 
discussion, unaware that the issue has been debated before, with no 
resolution.  This cycle is doomed to repeat itself over and over, as 
long as OSM proceeds the way it is.  A waste of time and effort!


I don't see how OSM can work well when mappers are free to tag however 
they want.  Different people have diametrically opposed ideas about how 
things should be done.  For example, some people think the meaning of a 
tag in OSM should be the dictionary meaning of the word; others are okay 
with a tag word having a "special" meaning in OSM.  How is a mapper to 
decide?  There is no consensus on this issue.  Although OSM has a policy 
of "any tag you like," based on the posts I've read, it seems most 
mappers want some guidance when it comes to tagging.  I deduce this from 
all the posts I read from contributors having to do with editing and 
refining the wiki.  However, there isn't even agreement on the purpose 
of the wiki.


It seems there are basically two camps of OSM mappers---those that are 
fine with the way OSM is currently structured, and those that want more 
structure.  If OSM doesn't change, another thing is guaranteed to not 
change as well:  endless and pointless tagging debates, and never a 
consensus.


Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 12:32:32 +0200
From: Christoph Hormann 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a
top-level   tag

On Thursday 07 June 2018, Selfish Seahorse wrote:

There are tons of established tags in OSM where the key makes no
sense at all.  Don't get me started on 'waterway' for example.  But
that is how OSM works.  Get over it, accept that people have made
bad choices of keys when choosing tags and concentrate on
encouraging and helping people to choose suitable keys when newly
creating tags (in a productive way of course, not just by rejecting
any idea as bad).

And what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?

Nothing except it would mean the end of free form tagging and it would
require creating some framework of tagging authorities in OSM who
decide on what is good and bad or in short:  The end of OSM as an
egalitarian global community.

Once more my suggestion to Martin and others who repeat the same matra
we have heard for years over and over again:  Accept that there are
thousands of mappers who do not care about key hygiene like you do or
have the sense of order you have.  That is a simple fact of life in a
diverse global community like OSM.

For me this always sounds a bit like someone who wants to 'fix the
English language' by eliminating irregular verbs and other exceptions
so you can say "I goed to the pub yesterday and haved a beer".  Yes, in
principle you can do that and you can argue this might make it easier
for people to learn the language but it just would not be English any
more.

Your brave new world with an intelligent design of orthogonal keys
would - apart from being an illusion (Kurt Gödel is greeting) - just
not be OSM any more.

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



--




I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a brand new set of 
"intelligently-designed" keys.  And I wouldn't mind if these keys were enforced from now on.  And I 
wouldn't mind that I would have to relearn all the tagging I now know.  Yes, it would be a "brave new 
world," and not the OSM we know now.  Someone some time ago on one of the OSM mailing lists summed up 
the current situation by stating, "It seems OSM is incapable of moving forward."  Unless we ever 
have more structure, I agree.

Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 16:51:26 -0400
From: Bryan Housel 
To: osm-tagging 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes


[...]



It kind of makes one question whether a community edited wiki is a good way to 
standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a coherant mapping dataset.  
Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the tools should just get together 
over beers and decide what all the tags should be.  I’ll buy!


[...]



+1



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag this area

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

I would also call it an amphitheatre.  Admittedly it is smaller than 
most, but I think a small amphitheatre is the best description.


Mark




Message: 6
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 09:16:19 +1000
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag this area

On 27 January 2018 at 08:35, OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:


Hello,

I can't find how to properly tag this place. [1]

No name pops to mind to represent its purpose: forum, amphitheatre,
pedestrian, speakers corner, etc. don't correspond to suitable tags.

I see a "circle area made of steps where you can sit and meet people", but
that won't make a good tag... :-)

I'd say forum or amphitheatre (although an amphitheatre would usually be

big?)



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

Re: [Tagging] Amphitheatre or outdoor non-sports venue

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

> Il giorno 14 set 2016, alle ore 07:15, Shawn K. Quinn  
> ha scritto:
>
> Is there anything about amenity=arts_centre that says it has to
> necessarily be indoor?
>
> I propose:
>
> amenity=arts_centre and either:
> arts_centre=ampitheatre or
> arts_centre=outdoor


> I find this a bit of a stretch. To me it seems more similar to a theatre, 
> although that doesn't catch it well either (because there isn't a > theatre 
> institution, just a theatre structure).
> What about man_made=amphitheatre ? I have mapped some historic ones as 
> building=amphitheatre and there are also few historic=amphitheatre
> http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/historic=amphitheatre
> http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/building=amphitheatre
> http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/man_made=amphitheatre
> http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/amenity=amphitheatre
> http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/leisure=amphitheatre


> usage numbers are all low, so I wouldn't pay too much attention, rather 
> choose the tag that seems best suited for mapping a generic amphitheatre 
> structure and put up a proposal in the wiki for documentation

> cheers,
> Martin


I agree with Martin.  I think any tag that has the connotation of arts
or theatre is too restrictive, because not all outdoor amphitheatres
are used for these purposes.  I know of some at religious sites that
are only used for worship.  I would prefer man_made=amphitheatre, with
subtags to describe how the amphitheatre is used or what type it is.

Mark Bradley

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

[Tagging] Tagging scrapyards, junkyards

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:12:23 +0700
> From: Dave Swarthout 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrap yards, junkyards
>
> A waste transfer station is a different operation from this one, which is a
> place to store used parts for the long-term until someone buys them. The
> things stored therein are not waste but resellable parts. If I want a
> tail-light lens for a 1975 Ford, for example, the best place, often the
> only place, to get it would be at a junkyard/scrapyard.
>
> Thanks for the input. I've got some good ideas now. I now agree that adding
> the tags for shop=car_parts and second_hand=only would help describe this
> particular type of scrapyard quite nicely.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave


I thought scrapyards and junkyards were two different entities.  This
is how I think of them.

Scrapyards are places whose primary purpose is to buy items that are
no longer wanted (typically metal objects) and then sell them for the
value of their raw materials.  Junkyards are places whose primary
purpose is to sell intact vehicle parts from wrecks to people who are
repairing a vehicle.  Definitely not the same thing.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 69, Issue 38

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

 Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:48:56 +0200
 From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
 tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] location=roof ?
 Message-ID:
 CABPTjTAUmcd3HmTEy-Y=u-vd_qsmva5gnnfgizlpcg2n535...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 2015-06-08 14:39 GMT+02:00 Richard ricoz@gmail.com:

 someone added location=roof to the wiki

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:locationdiff=1083742oldid=997238

 somehow this does not seem to fit well with the other values,
 what are the opinions on that?



 can you explain where you see the problems? Looking at taginfo, roof seems
 one of the more used values with more then 2000 occurences:
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/location#values

 Cheers,
 Martin

All of the other values are generic.  Roof identifies a specific
object.  If we open this up to specific objects, there could be an
infinite number of possibilities for the key value.

Mark

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