[Tagging] Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

[Marc Zoutendijk via Tagging]

To help with indicating questionable use of the tag, namely a green area within 
(or very close to) a roundabout, I have created this overpass that you can run 
in your own area.
It finds all landuse=village_green that is within 25 meters of a 
junction=roundabout.

The example that is included in this overpass query, is typical in its misuse 
of this tag.
Please be aware that it is time consuming for large areas.

The overpass is here:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KSx 

Marc.

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

[Tagging] Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

[Marc Zoutendijk via Tagging]

In 2017 [1] I posted here about the use of the landuse=village_green tagging.
Mainly because it was used against it's definition, which is:

"A village green is a distinctive part of a village centre. It's an area of 
common land (usually grass but may also be a lake), in the centre of a village 
(quintessentially English - defined separately from 'common land' under the 
Commons Registration Act 1965 and the Commons Act 2006)."

The wiki also has 2 additional uses:

"In Spain the tag has been used consensually to map Paseos: often rather 
different in appearance to English village greens, but sharing the functional 
purpose of a common shared space for inhabitants and their activities."

"The German page compares such spaces with the (de)Dorfanger in the East and 
with the (de)Brink in the Northwest of Central Europa."

--

Because I found out that the tag is greatly misused (mainly to tag all sorts of 
grass in villages and along highways), I did an extended research to get more 
details about this type of use.
My research is based on the OSM dataset of 14 july 2019.

The total number of tags for landuse=village_green is: 91645
I then took a selection of 22 countries  (listed below [3], based on the 
worldwide use on the taginfo map) and compared the uses per country to its use 
in the UK, because that country seems to be the main reason for the existence 
of this tag.

In those 22 countries the tag is used 55721 times and there are 5569 unique 
mappers responsible for using it.

I was surprised to see that in the country where I live, the Netherlands, the 
tag was used 260% more than in the UK.
Given the original definition that a Village Green is a "distinctive part of a 
village centre", you could expect in the Netherlands (based on the number of 
cities/towns/villages where each of those had indeed a Village Green) to find 
at most 2440 Village Greens. Where, then, are the 2691 others located??

And what about the other countries?
I started first by randomly (worldwide, with the help of overpass) looking at 
the map to see what people had marked with the tag, but later created a 
database application which allowed me to load faster the data of the map and 
inspect it.
My strategy was this:
For each of the 22 countries in my list, I sorted on changeset number to have 
the data in oldest-newest format. Interesting to see that its first use (12 
years ago) wasn't in the UK but in Germany, where the tag is anyway used more 
than in any other country. The most recent use was 4 days ago.
I took the two oldest uses, the two most recent uses and one in the middle, to 
create a set (of 110 changesets) for visual inspection of the tag on the map.
The result (based on my earlier look at its use) didn't surprise me at all: 65% 
of the landuse=village_green tag is NOT used according to the definition!
Because I first couldn't believe the result, I started again, but now taking 
only one country and visited 20 randomly changesets. That made things worse: 
sometimes (by being very liberal in my judgement of what a village green could 
be, even accepting a small area of grass somewehere around the village center) 
the misuse raised to 80%!

What can we conclude from this?
In the wiki talk-page [2] I already announced this problem and suggested to 
adapt the wiki to allow for different uses, based on consensus reached per 
country. We do that already for Spain and Germany, although that use is more in 
line with the original use. What I see now is a competely different use.

The most frequent (ab)use now are all areas covered with grass (anywhere in a 
village), the centers of roundabouts, along stretches of highways, and the kind 
of "green" that you see on the photos in the wiki.
This wrong use is understandable: the word "village" and the word "green" both 
lead - for those not being native English speakers nor reading the wiki nor 
knowing anything about the historical context - to using it for the situations 
I mentioned above.

There are of course more occurences of faulty tags for a given situation, but 
not to the extent we see with the landuse=village_green tag.

The number of Village Greens is bound to some upper limit, someday we have all 
of them in OSM, but then people will still use that tag (as they do now) 
because it fits their definition, neglecting the wiki. 
The situation that we have now: mappers are using a key-value pair 
(landuse=village_green) for tagging landuse that is not supposed to be tagged 
that way in at least 65% of the cases I investigated.
In the future that number will rise to the point where almost all use of 
landuse=village_green is wrong.

Does this situation need our attention? And if so, how do we deal with it?


As a side note it is interesting to see that the village_green taging was 
approved [4] in 2006 by two votes in favor and none against!
 
Marc Zoutendijk
-

Links:

[1] htt

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

[Marc Zoutendijk]

From: Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org <mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org>>


> On 07.12.2017 17:34, Marc Zoutendijk wrote:
> 
>> Especially with regard to village_green it is striking to see how many 
>> mappers in the UK have used 
>> this tag "_against_ the original definition.”  
> Do you have proof that it was UK mappers who did that, and not somebody 
> armchair painting green on 
> the map, from elsewhere?
> 


This mapper:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Parker 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chris%20Parker>
seems a UK mapper to me and with a good track record of over 9000 changesets.
He mapped _every_ roundabout on this square as a village_green:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEk <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEk>


I have created an overpass for the village_green tag (with a color stylesheet).
Currently it finds everything in the UK, but is easily to change to find other 
countries.
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEe <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEe>


>> Making the tag village_green a useless tag (in the 
>> sense of that wiki) anyway.
> 
> Not if we clear the situation now.
> 

+1

>> Anyway, another mapper has removed the pictures from the wiki.
> 
> No, they are on the talk page now.

The person who “moved” the pictures did not say where he moved them…
I contacted him on his talk page an he explained what he had done.
It is ok with me.

> 
>> Thanks for this nice form of cooperation without any discussion at all.
> 
> You are wrong, it was discussed in the wiki since March 2017 (after you added 
> the pictures on the 
> feature page in February), and recently in this list.
> 

You misunderstand me here, I objected to moving those pictures without 
disccussing _that_ with me first.
And talking about discussion: it was already discussed on this mailing list 
before I added the pictures to the wiki:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030788.html 
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030788.html>

And because it’s use outside of the UK seems to me not possible (or even 
allowed) because of legal consequences, someone should tell the Spanish mappers 
they have to fix something:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEq <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEq>

Or the mappers in Belgium:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEr <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tEr>

Earlier in this discussion I wrote: “do we need another year”?
I think we do!

Marc.








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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> From: Marc Gemis 

> Village green is translated literally in Dutch as gemeentegroen
> (village = gemeente, green=groen), which is just any small patch of
> grass, bushes, flowers, trees inside a town near a road.

“near a road” is a rather useless addition as almost every object within a 
village is near a road!


Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

[Marc Zoutendijk]

From: Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org <mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org>>


> On 05.12.2017 20:40, Marc Zoutendijk wrote:> Martin, did you see the pictures 
> I have added to the 
> wiki? [1]
> Nice pictures, but they belong onto the discussion page, as it is _not_ an 
> 'alternative' use, it is 
> a use _against_ the original definition.

They have been discussed:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030851.html 
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030851.html>

My view (and not mine only, read the discussion) is that a wiki should describe 
how a tag _is_used_ and not how it should be used.

Especially with regard to village_green it is striking to see how many mappers 
in the UK have used this tag "_against_ the original definition.”  Making the 
tag village_green a useless tag (in the sense of that wiki) anyway.
check this example:

https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/public-share/YS4ghoklDNdBGSE/preview?path=/=thumbnail=medium

Anyway, another mapper has removed the pictures from the wiki. 
Thanks for this nice form of cooperation without any discussion at all.

Marc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Hello all,

> From: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com <mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>>
> 
> There was a long discussion on the Dutch forum awhile back [1]
> I tried to convince them not to use landuse=village_green for hedges,
> plants, flowers etc. in town centers. I believe the consensus was they
> would still use it for that purpose, especially, since the
> UK-community also does this [2]
> 

Not only there was a long discussion on the Dutch forum, but also on the 
tagging list:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030788.html 
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/030788.html>

And with respect to the use of the wiki it is noted in the above discussion 
that the wiki: “describes what we tag” and not "how we should tag”.
The same problem arises when tagging highways, as in many countries there are 
different legal consequences with respect to the various different highways. 
Should we come up with a tagging like highway:uk=primary and also 
highway:es=primary because there might be differences?

Let’s keep it simple and stick with one tag (village_green), keep the way is is 
rendered and explain the different uses in the wiki.

Also interesting to note on this wiki page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation>
Where it has:
landuse=village_green: “An open area of grass in the centre of an English 
village.”
Actually this states that village_green is only for use inside the UK!
Which leads to the conclusion that outside of the UK, “an open area of grass in 
the centre of the village”  _may not_ be called a village_green. 
OSM is there to map the world, not the UK only!

And in this wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=village_green>

We read:
"In Spain the tag has been used consensually to map Paseos: often rather 
different in appearance to English village greens, but sharing the functional 
purpose of a common shared space for inhabitants and their activities."

Please also note that I’m the one that added the (other) different uses to that 
wiki and also included the pictures to show this different use because (as a 
result of the discussion on our forum [1] ) we agreed:

1. If it is grass: tag it as grass
2. if it is a tree: tag it as a tree
3. if it is a hedge: tag it as a hedge
4. if it is a park: tag it as a park
5. if it is a flowerbed: tag it as a flowerbed

And only in the situation that we have:
"all kinds of mixed vegetation (plants, bushes, flowers, small trees, grass), 
mostly in urban areas, very often maintained by the Municipality. "
we tag it with village_green.


Regards,

Marc Zoutendijk.

> 
> [1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=56899 
> <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=56899> (in Dutch)
> [2] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=626244#p626244 
> <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=626244#p626244>
> (with screenshots)

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

[Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Hi all,

Recently I discovered a tagging where at the same street address and house 
number, 3 different (although related) companies  are located. 
Because adding multiple values to the same key is not easy to do in OSM, 
(mostly used for adding more telephone numbers, separating the numbers with a 
semicolon), and in this case the mapper had chosen to simply add three nodes 
and duplicate all the relevant address tags.
Because all three companies had an office=research tag and because the office 
tag is not rendered at all on the standard map(!!) but only shows the 
addr:housenumber (when present), the above described tagging resulted in 
showing 3 times the same address node on the map. Which by definition is wrong 
because a given street address (addr:city + addr:street + addr:postcode + 
addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at least in the country (The Netherlands) 
where I live and where I found this situation.

In The Netherlands _all_ buildings and the related address nodes were (and 
still are) imported in a huge import (BAG) which was discussed years ago and 
also presented in a wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/BAGimport 


Dutch mappers usually add POI information (like a shop, restaurant, hotel etc. 
) to an existing address node and usually this works well, except when we face 
the situation where more objects share that very same address. E.g. it is not 
uncommon to have a hotel and a bar share the same building and address. In this 
case the hotel is added to the (existing) address node and a new node is 
created for the bar, but without the address information and this node is 
simply put within the contour of the hotel building.

The situation I’m describing here, with 3 research offices all sharing the same 
address would (could?) lead to tagging like this:

addr:street=streetname
addr:housenumber=X
office=research
name=“name of first office”;”name of second office”;”name of third office”
webiste=“website-1”;“website-2”;“website-3”
phone=“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”;“phonenumber-1”


Which wouldn’t be my choice of solving this problem, suppose the values for 
office would differ as well, this would give even more complicated tag 
combinations. Maintaining/checking it would be cumbersome.
How to render this mess?

Other solutions have been presented over the years in various wikis, forums and 
mailing-lists, but a satisfactory solution still has to be found, hence my 
question to continue reading and study this proposal that was done in 2011:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress 


I wrote the mapper who proposed this a PM and he replied with the message that 
he is no longer very active on OSM.
I have used this proposed relation for the tagging of the 3 named offices here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7676306 


Of course because this is an unsupported type of relation, nothing shows on the 
map, save the (one) house number, but here you can see the situation as it was 
before I added my changes:

https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/vgHPvYALM4p7n6t 


With tools like OpenPoiMap you can see some results, but because the address 
tags are removed you have to guess that those 3 offices share the same address:
http://openpoimap.org/?map=various=18=52.81317=6.39542=B00TFFF


I must say that this way of tagging (with a relation) looks quite clear to me, 
is easy to do and opens up many possibilities. But is it easy to render once 
accepted? 

Hence:

1. Should we continue and discuss and finally vote for the proposal mentioned 
above?
2. Can you think of another solution for this specific problem: “how to map/tag 
multiple (sometimes even not related) objects to the same (one) address node?”

Thanks for any input,
Marc.





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

Re: [Tagging] Destination:street

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 23 jan. 2017, om 19:44 heeft Mark Bradley  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Count me as one of those that wishes OpenStreetMap were more structured.  As 
> Colin said, choices have to be made, and not everyone will be happy.  Empower 
> some folks to make decisions (after thoughtful deliberation), and enforce the 
> decisions!  Just tell me how something should be tagged, and I'll follow it!  
> Without something like this, it seems like we are doomed to go around and 
> around, forever and ever...

+1

But i would like to add that your:

"Empower some folks to make decisions (after thoughtful deliberation)”

is questionable. How many is “some folks”?

It has surprised me from the start of my OSM-life (2011), that this list has 
about 15-25 regular contributors.
Are they the ones that have to decide how 2.000.000 mappers should map?
There are so many mappers that map without even knowing that there is a wiki. 

Marc.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] destination:street

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 23 jan. 2017, om 10:42 heeft Colin Smale  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> It's a complete waste of time to have yet another debate about the pro's and 
> con's of semicolons vs suffixes and all the other possibilities, without 
> having some kind of mechanism in place, and the will, to actually make a 
> decision one way or the other.
> 

+1

Marc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Public transport cards

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 17 jan. 2017, om 11:02 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 2017-01-17 8:47 GMT+01:00 Tijmen Stam  >:
> However, I would warn against using OSM as a database for public transport. 
> It seems as if public transport is sometimes overmicromapped in OSM.
> 
> 
> +1, I'd see public_transport cards somehow included in the ticket vending, 
> and there's generally a move away from any kind of physical ticket or cards 
> towards electronic solutions in combination with smartphones etc., so it 
> might not even be worth the hazzle ;-)


+1, In addition I would note that I have never met one single person who is 
using OSM to plan his public transport journeys. I’m a very heavy user of 
public transport and I always use the website from the operator to find out 
when/where/how my bus/train is going. I would not even think of OSM…

Marc.




> ___
> 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] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Martin,

> Op 16 jan. 2017, om 11:38 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Maybe it could be interesting to see _where_ the usage does not conform to 
> the definition, i.e. from the actual definition, this tag wouldn't have a 
> place outside of the UK (maybe commonwealth) anyway. What about Britain, is 
> the usage there inconsistent as well?

My four examples of “wrong” use, are all from within Britain.
And it seems that outside of Britain the use differs wildly from the definition 
becuase to many people village_green simply means “green spots inside a 
vilage”, and that’s what they use it for.

Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 16 jan. 2017, om 11:38 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  > het volgende geschreven:
> 
> to be fair, it is not just one user who thinks there is a problem with 
> landuse=grass, it has been noted on various occasions that "grass" is not a 
> use.

I agree with that view and support landcover=* for this use.
But I was referring to the _one_ user who changed the wiki.

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

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Earlier I wrote:

> I found many uses of landuse=village_green that _completely_ignore_ the core 
> definition in the wiki!
> I made some screenshotes (from overpass) to inspect (I have used the color 
> red to show the usage):
> 
> https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/PruVaYiH5AgdRQO 
> 
> https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/64YFp8c0jLch6aD 
> 
> https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/YS4ghoklDNdBGSE 
> 
> https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/FFOD0zEB7KMuudL 
> 
> 
> 

> Is that a Village Green according to the wiki?
> Don’t make me laugh!
> 
> What function do the wiki’s have in the OSM world?

From other mappers I heard that the wiki should describe what mappers _do_ map, 
not what they _should_ map.
For landuse=grass there was some debate over the change of the wiki by a user, 
replacing what we do map by what that user thinks we should map.

For landuse=village_green the practical use of that tagging is highly different 
(but not everywhere) from what the wiki states.
Hence I have _added_ a few lines to the wiki, explaining that the use of 
village_green on the map, differs from what’s in the wiki.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse 



Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 12 jan. 2017, om 15:17 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 2017-01-11 22:40 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>> Approach =the problem from 2 different ways of thinking -
> 
>> What is the 'cover' ... landcover ?
>> and then 
>> What is the 'use' ... landuse?
> 
>> Once you divide those 2 things up it makes it clearer what is there. 
>> 
> +1, this is what I am advocating for many years: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
> 

I like that idea too, but why did that proposal process stop? Your original 
proposal is from 2010!! And a renewed one from 2014?


To find out how the tag has been used on the map, I started a research with 
overpass in Great Britain to see how that tag is used in that country, being 
the country where the Village Green seems to have originated.

First I quote the wiki:

"A village green is a distinctive part of a village centre. It's an area of 
common land (usually grass but may also be a lake), in the centre of a village 
(quintessentially English - defined separately from 'common land' under the 
Commons Registration Act 1965 and the Commons Act 2006).”

Please note: “distinctive part” and “in the centre of a village” in the 
definition

I found many uses of landuse=village_green that _completely_ignore_ the core 
definition in the wiki!
I made some screenshotes (from overpass) to inspect (I have used the color red 
to show the usage):

https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/PruVaYiH5AgdRQO
https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/64YFp8c0jLch6aD
https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/YS4ghoklDNdBGSE
https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/FFOD0zEB7KMuudL

Especially the 3rd example is worth 
viewing.https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/FFOD0zEB7KMuudL
To see what’s really there (‘on the ground”), you should drive around a bit:

https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0368116,-0.7484204,3a,90y,285.92h,79.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm8DAnw2KC8KgIml_rvBz-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl

Is that a Village Green according to the wiki?
Don’t make me laugh!

What function do the wiki’s have in the OSM world?


Marc.




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

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 10 jan. 2017, om 05:14 heeft Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> I thought the original question was broader than just the patches of
> green next to the road. I also want to know how to map those green
> patches when they are not part of roundabouts, or are located between
> sidewalk and road (where cars drive).

To help us focus on what type of “green” I’m (and others) are thinking of, I 
have prepared a photo-collage:

https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/guN1x7PBfZfP1ZR 
<https://marczoutendijk.stackstorage.com/s/guN1x7PBfZfP1ZR>

At the core of all this we we see:

- areas of any size but more often small
- a variety of grass, plants, flowers and trees in any number and combination
- located mostly inside urban areas 
- there is not normally an entrance to the area but sometime a footpath divides 
it

Tagging this with leisure=garden covers all situations quiet well, save for the 
“entrance” part.
One other idea was to add the operator=* tag. E.g. operator=municipality.

One of the other possibilities (proposed in the Dutch Forum) to tackle this 
problem, is to redifine village_green to mean something different in The 
Netherlands then in the UK. Such local meaning of tags we also see for highway 
tagging.

Marc Zoutendijk



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

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 8 jan. 2017, om 20:20 heeft Tod Fitch  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> Based on usage in the United States, it sure sounds like leisure=park is the 
> tag to use for what you are describing. I see nothing in the wiki page [1] 
> for park that indicates it must be a minimum size, have a wall, a discrete 
> entrance or that it has to have a name.  There are a lot of areas local to me 
> called parks, that are tagged with leisure=park and which do not have 
> fences/walls/or gates. And some of the smaller ones (colloquially called 
> “mini-parks”) don’t seem to have names either.
> 


Todd,

To me a park is some place that you gan "go into”. E.g." let’s go out for a 
stroll in the park.”

The wiki:

"Typically open to the public, but may be fenced off, and may be temporarily 
closed e.g. at night time.”

But i’m talking also about the areas that you find also in the middle of a 
roundabout.
Adn I wouldn’t call an area of 14m2 between two sections of a highway, covered 
with grass and some flowers a “park”.

No, there really must be something better (I hope) to describe this sort of 
landuse.

Marc.

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

[Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Hello,

Some mappers use landuse=village_green to tag those spots on the map that are 
combinations of grass, plants, bushes, flowers and sometimes a few small trees.
The size can vary between 1m2 to maybe 100m2-500m2. 
Areas like those are usually maintained bij the municipality and are used as a 
means to improve the environment of the inhabitants of a village or city. 
They are not to be confused with a garden or a park, because those usually have 
some sort of fence or wall around them, they can have a name and they have an 
entrance.
In the Dutch community we are now seeking for a proper tagging for this kind of 
landuse that consists of various other landuses (forest, grass and others) 
mixed together.

The (mis)use of village_green for the landuse like what I described above, 
stems mainly from a misunderstanding of the typical English definition and use 
of the village_green as described in the wiki. [1] 
Not being from Great Britain, I don't understand it either! Some people argue 
that landuse=village_green cannot exist outside of Great Britain because of its 
special, legal, status.

One of the proposals for this (mixed) type of landuse is “municipality_green” 
or "municipality_vegetation", and before we continue with its use, I would like 
to learn what kind of discussions have been had before about tagging this kind 
of landuse. 
I read various discussions on the German forum and started one in the Dutch 
forum [2], but could not find anything recently in the tagging archives. Anyone 
who knows (something) better?


Marc

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green 

[2] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=56899 



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

[Tagging] Multiple values for one key - the cuisine problem.

[Marc Zoutendijk]

How to tag multiple values for a key? The cuisine problem.

Whenever we tag a restaurant, we also have the option of tagging the kind/style 
of food that is offered:

amenity=restaurant
cuisine=french

The wiki is clear about this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cuisine

In the next table I have collected all the values for cuisine that were in use 
at least 100 times.
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~marczoutendijk/taginfo-cuisine-proper.html

Problems arise whenever the choices for food/cuisine are not easy to state with 
one value, like when we have a restaurant that is both serving french and 
italian food.
In the above table, we see the solution that is used often when there exist 
more values at the same time for a given key: separate the values by 
semicolons. *[1]
This way is also used often for all aother keys that can have multiple values.
This problem of multiple values for one key has been discussed by me in a few 
diary entries. *[2]*[3]

Using the same key more than once?
We cannot put:

amenity=restaurant
cuisine=french
cuisine=italian

into OSM, because you cannot use the same key twice on the same node. If you 
try to do that in iD it comes up with cuisine_1 for the second choice.
That is odd, because it should have named it cuisine_2 in the first place, 
because cuisine_1 is the default first one, that now has the tag cuisine=*. 
Very confusing to have cuisine=* for the first one and cuisine_1=* for the 
second one!
Because iD is the default editor, many beginning mappers use it and aren't even 
aware of this problem and simply accept what iD offers.

When you enter a new value for a given key in JOSM or try to add an existing 
key again, it simply removes the other one.

To examine the various ways of tagging this cuisine=* I have taken all the 
related values from the taginfo database (date 2016-08-05) and put them in 
various tables.

In the next table you can see _all_ the values that are currently use for the 
"underscore” (the iD method) namespace:
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~marczoutendijk/taginfo-cuisine-underscore.html

There is a third method that mappers use to solve the problem:

amenity=restaurant
cuisine=french
cuisine:2=italian

or for the italian choice:
cuisine:italian=yes

This way is also referred to as namespace tagging and in this table you see 
_all_ the values currently in use according to this method:
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~marczoutendijk/taginfo-cuisine-colon.html
In this table we sometimes see that the value is still a multiple value list, 
separated by semicolons.

More problematic (to me) is the use of:

cuisine:XX=value where XX is the iso countrycode.
What is the purpose of using that code in relation to the food being served?
Or is it a way of saying that the language in use for the value is given in 
that XX?

Finally I collected a few rare values:
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~marczoutendijk/taginfo-cuisine-rare.html

"Rare" in the sense that they are few but contain extremely long lists of ";" 
separated values or are in a different script without noting so in the 
cuisine:XX key.

A problem is that the wiki doesn't mention any of these cases.
I would like your opinion on which way we should deal with those issues. 
Mappers have come up (as can be learned from my tables) with a choice of 
solutions, but it is (at least) a confusing situation.
If this has been (most likely) discussed before, then there is nothing of that 
discussion to be found in the mentioned wiki.

Marc


=
[1]http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/marczoutendijk/diary/35478
[2]http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/marczoutendijk/diary/35532
[3]http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/marczoutendijk/diary/35512



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

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 23 aug. 2016, om 13:42 heeft Bjoern Hassler  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> […]

> However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether the 
> site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth 
> visiting).
> 
> What do you think? What tag should I use?

Satellite images come in various degrees of resolution and hence the visibility 
tag would have to account for that. Because those sites may not be visible at 
all on different areal images.

And “being worth a vist” can easily be set with one of the tourism=* solutions.

Marc.




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

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 20 mei 2016, om 21:09 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Maybe already the word greenHOUSE indicates a building (yes, likely there are 
> foo houses that aren't buildings). The picture you have linked could be 
> called building I believe, but I don't understand where we want to get to. 
> What about the 128.000 greenhouses in the db?

Martin,

We don’t have to get to anywhere. If the wiki suggests to use building for a 
greenhouse, I happily will do so, but I was pointing out that what is true in 
one language may not be true (or even false) in another language. And that 
problem is not (and will never be) solved by this discussion.
But as a result some mappers (like me) are wondering what the reason behind 
some choices was. 
And more and more mappers (not in control of UK English) don’t understand the 
concepts behind certain tags and use them in completely different/wrong ways. 
And on the other hand there are many concepts/objects in use in different 
cultures that do not have a counterpart in UK English. How are we mapping those?

On Tenerife (and in the majority of Andalucia), thousands of “greenhouses” are 
just made of large plastic sheets fixed between steel wires. I wouldn’t call 
those "sheet-houses” buildings (but I shall map them according to the “rules”).


See my diary entry on language problems [1].

Marc.


[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/marczoutendijk/diary/35936 


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

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 20 mei 2016, om 10:51 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  > het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Actually the dutch wikipedians DO classifiy a greenhouse (kas) as nl:gebouw, 
> from wikipedia.nl  "Kas(gebouw)":
> "De traditionele negentiende-eeuwse kas was een gebouw dat werd 
> aangetroffen..." 


Martin,

Earlier in this topic you wrote:

> "Yes, the term "building" has a more narrow meaning in language than what it 
> is used for in OSM, and wikipedia reflects this, still, for OSM the osm wiki 
> is relevant, not wikipedia.”

That’s what I do also. I don’t care what wikipedia is writing if all my fellow 
countryman are talking about “De kassen in het Westland” and not “De gebouwen 
in het Westland”.

I agree with you that Palm House in Kew Gardens [1] could be considered a 
building, but this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westland_kassen.jpg 


is by not one single person in the Netherlands called a “building" or a "group 
of buidlings”.

And in my use of the word “green_house” is was referring to the latter.

Marc.



[1] 
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kas_%28gebouw%29#/media/File:Kew_Gardens_Palm_House,_London_-_July_2009.jpg
 


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

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 20 mei 2016, om 00:03 heeft Dave Swarthout  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> I don't know where the notion came from saying a greenhouse is not a 
> building. It is not a residence but it is most certainly a building - it has 
> doors, walls and a roof, Just because they're made of glass doesn't 
> disqualify it from the building category.
> 

Dave,

That was my observation. The major problem in this discussion - as almost 
always is the case when people have different opinions - is a language problem. 
In my country, The Netherlands, we have tens of thousands of greenhouses but 
nobody will call them “building” because that word translates as “gebouw” and 
that doesn’t fit (in Dutch) to what a greenhouse is. We have just a different 
word for a greenhouse: “kas”. (and it might be called “bouwwerk” - something 
that is built; or “constructie” - something that is constructed; but never 
“gebouw” - building. )

How nice would it be if all words in all languages had a one-to-one 
relationship!
And because the lingua-franca for OSM is UK-English, more and more problems 
will arise in the future as more and more "non-uk-english-speakers-mappers” are 
trying to find out "what the heck is a village_green??” 

Marc.


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

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 19 mei 2016, om 14:46 heeft Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Marc Zoutendijk <marczoutend...@mac.com> 
> wrote:
>> And as a side note I could say:
>> Combining man_made=* AND building=* on the same object (as is often done to 
>> make it appear on the map) is as wrong as using highway=* and waterway=* on 
>> the same object. It is one or the other, but cannot be both.
> 
> Marc, it seems like the person that added the building=digester does
> not agree with you:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Travelling_salesman
> 
> ___

Yes, but he writes:

"That's because everything that is a building should be tagged as a building”

Which is the same as saying: "everything that is a tree should be tagged as a 
tree”

The point is that there is confusion about the word “building”. In my opinion 
not everything that is built is a building. A car e.g. is built, but is it a 
building? A ship is built, is it a building? 

Marc.




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

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Hi,

> Op 18 mei 2016, om 17:46 heeft Marc Gemis  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> Triggered by a discussion on the Dutch forum I looked at the building
> page  [1] again. I noticed a new value: digester
> 
> I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to put this under man_made [2]
> just as we do with gasometer, hot water tank and similar constructions.
> 
> what do you think ?
> 
> 


I think I know to what discussion you refer, and me, too, had some doubts about 
“digester” being a “building”.
But there are more such “mistakes”. To me a greenhouse is NOT a building. Of 
course, it is built, but every "man made" object is built, but that doesn’t 
mean it is to be considered a building.

And as a side note I could say:
Combining man_made=* AND building=* on the same object (as is often done to 
make it appear on the map) is as wrong as using highway=* and waterway=* on the 
same object. It is one or the other, but cannot be both.

Marc.




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

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 16 apr. 2016, om 08:27 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> but in these cases there would typically be a room in the tower, i.e. the 
> pole is there to support something on top, or is big and hollow and 
> accessible in the inside.
> 
> this is not a tower: 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Borough_Hill_mast.jpg 
> 
> 
> this is not a mast: 
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_della_televisione_di_Stoccarda#/media/File:Stuttgarter_Fernsehturm6.jpg
>  
> 

I agree with this vision, but in the last case, which we also see very often in 
my country (The Netherlands), one still could say that we see a mast on top of 
a tower, like this one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Gerbrandy_tower.jpg 


Which creates even more confusion.

A tower is built on the spot where you see it. But a mast is very often 
constructed elsewhere and simply erected on the spot where you see it, although 
I’m not sure if we can use this in our decision on how to tag.

Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 7 mrt. 2016, om 08:56 heeft Frederik Ramm  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> Thankfully, this is hypothetical because we won't do it. OSM is a geo
> database and not a sales directory.

+1

That’s exactly how I see it. 
Never, ever would OSM be able to support such a sales directory in a reliable 
manner, resulting in few people using it because you never can be sure if OSM 
is missing some important data about the yamaha motor-cycle seller next door to 
you.

I developed http://openpoimap.org  to help me in 
locating POI, but everytime I use it, it only tells me that the number of 
missing shops is far greater than the shops that *are* on the map. 
But the same is not true for roads, rivers, landuse, buildings or other geo 
features. At least not in the countries I regurlay visit (in person or 
“virtual”).

I wouldn’t object against the “sells” tag, but I’m not going to use it.

Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> On 17 feb. 2016, at 21:22 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> Generally, when the definitions in OSM are different from what a person 
> speaking the language might expect, it doesn't work. The issue here:
> "small" "a few meters high" seems not pertinent for radio masts which are 
> among the tallest man made structures on earth, particularly when made of 
> concrete or steel they can be hundreds of meters high. A quick image search 
> confirms this (no small structures at all had been found)
> 

I was talking about a mast, not about towers.
The wiki (how “unlucky" it may be) is clear on the difference between a mast 
and a tower. [1]

> From a mast I'd expect to have guy wires, while a tower should typically be 
> freestanding, so the word "small tower" doesn't seem to be a lucky choice 
> either.


I don’t expect guy wires, neither does the wiki, nor have I ever seen them in 
use for all (55 or so) man_made=mast structures that are in my neighbourhood 
(in the Nehterlands). Typically “small” masts of steel or concrete and about 5 
- 15 meters high.

But that was not my question in the first place, I asked for the use of:

man_made=mast
mast=lighting

or
mast:type=lighting

Marc.


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Hi all,

Currently man_made=mast has this wiki description:

"A man_made=mast is usually a small tower of only a few meters height. It is 
often built from concrete or steel and only for a single application like a 
mobile phone base station."

The part "only for a single application" almost always deals with 
communications, but does it has to be so?

Recently someone was trying to map a number of street lamps that were really 
beyond the regular lamp pole idea. Tagging them with highway=street_lamp would 
not describe (fully) their function.
You can see a picture of that situation here. [1]
The location on the map is here. [2]

On the map you can see that because of this tagging:

man_made=mast
mast=lighting

they show up on the map as communication towers. Which of course looks rather 
weird. (*)(**)

The design of the lighting on this square is part of the architectural design 
and could probably be tagged different to do more justice to this type of 
lighting.
Another type of similar lighting is here [3]
Do you think that extending the use of man_made=mast with the above used 
mast=lighting (or maybe better mast:type=lighting) is a useful adddition?
Do you have any other thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Marc.


[1] 
http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo=23_photo_id=93337008=date_desc=7788600

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.23768/6.83967

[3] 
http://zoom.nl/foto/full/landschap/kijfhoek-in-de-nacht.2436005.html?object=user_id=138053

(*) The two leftmost lamp poles have been tagged with highway=street_lamp, and 
currently do not render

(**) I found another example with mast:type=lighting here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3191361778#map=18/56.51507/66.54789
overpass-turbo: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/esX


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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 15 feb. 2016, om 11:04 heeft Matthijs Melissen  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> On 15 February 2016 at 10:52, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>> Maybe the Van Gogh Museum
>> does deal with van Gogh's life and not just with his work, what would
>> explain the term museum for this.
> 
> The Van Gogh museum only displays paintings.
> 

And not only paintings by Van Gogh.
It is (indeed) correctly called a museum.

Marc.



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

[Tagging] Artwork AND Memorial at the same time

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Hi,

One of the rules we use is the "one feature, one OSM element” [1]
This makes sense for a lot of elements, e.g. if something has the tag: 
higway=residential it would be silly to also have amenity=restaurant on the 
same element.
But it is not very uncommon to have a memorial that was created as a piece of 
art by an artist. One could tag such an object with:

tourism=artwork
historic=memorial

and of course add other relevant stuff like artist_name etc.

But what should be rendered in such a case? The memorial or the artwork?

Validators often complain in such situations, while humanly speaking there is 
nothing wrong with it.There are numeorus artists who have created memorial 
statues or pieces of art.

What is your solution for this problem?


Marc.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 26 jan. 2016, om 10:43 heeft althio  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> 
> I would like :
> - discourage tourism=gallery
> - subtype of tourism=museum, museum=art just like
> museum=railway/history, and further art=painting/...
> - also redirect towards shop=art for badly tagged items
> 

+1
This is a clear solution.

Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 9 jan. 2016, om 19:50 heeft Hakuch  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> I propose, to remove the tagging of name_1 and alt_name_1 from the wiki.

I agree.

Marc.



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

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 15 okt. 2015, om 19:43 heeft Philip Barnes  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 16:49 +0100, Dave F. wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> http://www.martincollins.com/Portals/0/Images/menage-surfaces/menage-surface-martin-collins.jpg
>> 
>> I'm trying to find an appropriate tag for these areas used to 
>> exercise/train horses. Manège seemed correct, but at only 141 
>> occurrences, I'm wondering if there's a more common name in use. Any ideas?
> 
> I think its a menage, thats what usually appears on planning
> applications for such things.
> 

Check this:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/menage 


I don’t think that that’s what you mean.

In French Manège is the word used to descibe the collection of training 
facilities for horses, like stables and arenas.

Also check this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dressage 

I think that what is shown on the photo in the original post is correctly 
called Arena.

Marc.




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

[Tagging] Bitcoin EmBassy is place_of_worship???

[Marc Zoutendijk]

I was higly surprised to see the Bitcoin emBassy being tagged with: 
amenity=place_of_worship.

See for yourself:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2839982498 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2839982498

Nowhere in the wiki do I find one single word that would allow for this strange 
combination of tags.

Maybe we should tag OSMF headquarters in the same way :-)

Marc.

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