Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Michael Patrick]

I pretty much learned to drive in the State of Montana, and they had a
superbly simple method of road hazard warning. For every fatal accident,
they would plant a post, and on the post would be one or more crosses
corresponeding to the fatalities in that accident. ( Keep in mind for many
years, Montana had an unlimited speed limit, and even aft the nationall 55
limit, you were issued a $5 'fuel consumption violation' )

So, when you were cruising up to curve in the road, especially at night
when your headlights would reflect off them, it gave a nicely quantitative
measure of how fast one should take that stretch of road. :-)

https://bozemanmagazine.com/articles/2019/12/01/103395-sobering-reminder-montanas-fatality-marker
and https://bit.ly/37FUnzZ

Michael Patrick


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Michael Patrick]

> mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of
> tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.

I pulled down some samples from various areas around the world, and loaded
them into QGIS ( https://bit.ly/3ptp0AG  ).
A lot of the usage was very systematic, and obviously specific to projects,
micro-communities or individuals. Some were seamarks, gauging stations,
cell networks and other infrastructure components. The connotation in those
specialized use contexts is much different than the very generic denotation
one might find in the wiki, for example.
The difficulty is that the tag's meaning isn't isolated and stand alone, it
contributes meaning along with the other tags on the object, so it can aid
in categorization of that set.
For example, sometimes it seemed to refer to the placement base or
foundation ( rock outcrop vs. a building that provides most of the
elevation ), sometimes generalization of the particular material of the
structure ( mounting of stream gauges ), other times as simply a very
generic placeholder until more specific and detailed tagging could occur
when compared to other objects in a set. So basically, there are
potentially as many different specific meanings as features in various
geographical regions it is applied to.- some seemed hyperlocal and others
were sprinkled probably globally. If someone had OSM planet file
super-powers, they could probably be able to roll through changesets to
cluster and inventory the various collections by many iterations of
queries,to assess the impact of a replacement change, but it would be
impossible to know for sure if those results were correct.

Michael Patrick




>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

[Michael Patrick]

> I am surprised nobody has suggested a pondness or lakicity scale yet.
>

It isn't unusual outside of OSM for relative percentages of the different
meanings to be accounted for. For example for Great Pond (
https://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=44.5=-69.8=nad83=16
) with a surface area of 13 square miles

lake 15%
reservoir 84%   ( volume added to the original lake by the dam )
pond 1%


<#m_-6680278241776399936_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of Rest)

[Michael Patrick]

 No one has to guess or derive terms - 'chapel of rest' is a specific
national-ish flavor of the more general service of  'viewing_arrangments'
by the organization responsible for a funeral. The origins of 'chapel of
rest ( and why that specific term was coined and used ) basically were born
out of a public health need - there are a score of excruciating detailed
histories of this in the UK, and some of those also address evolution and
exchange of business models and tech between the UK and USA. The UK
industry histories also discuss the adoption of accommodations of varying
religious customs and class expectations.
Also, the funeral business in a multi-billion dollar global industry with a
presence practically everywhere, it is easy to determine what those
governments, businesses, and customers call 'looking at a corpse in the
time period between dressing / embalming event and the interment /
cremation event.
And I gather sometimes those 'viewing_arrangements' are sometimes as
ostentatious as a Hollywood wedding, or parade permits and venue
arrangements for political figures perhaps tens of thousands of people over
a week. IMHO, using a single word 'viewing' is sufficient because of the
tagging context, but some seem to feel it might be confused with going to
the cinema or some such.

A typical list for a funeral home, consumer guide, product and service
coding looks like this:
Funeral Services:
 - Publishing Arrangements ( Obituary, Death Notices, Posters, Invitations,
Memorial Cards)
-  Facilities Arrangements ( Venue Rentals, etc.)
-  Viewing Arrangements ( Room, Register, Reception, Decoration )
   UK: chapel_of_rest
   US: corpse_viewing
   FR: chambre_mortuaire
-  Floral Arrangements
-  Religious Arrangements ( Clergy, Ritual Supplies, etc. )
 - Catering Arrangements
-  Music Arrangements ( Selection, Tapes, Contracting Musicians )

If you were adding 'viewing' it would seem you would also add those other
equivalent services.

+1 I *approve* this proposal. Distinguishes a *physical building type*
albeit mostly in the UK and former empire ( including historic buildings in
the original USA 13 colonies ) from what is essentially a 'service' offered
that could be provided by various entities and take place in a variety of
venues from temporary conversion of an existing room, dedicated room, or a
specialized separate public structure at cemetery

( See "The Evolution of the British Funeral Industry in the 20th Century:
>From undertaker to funeral director" - "Chapter 2 From Front Parlour to
Funeral Parlour The Development of the Chapel of Rest and Funeral Home"
https://bit.ly/3p0rBSz ).

For the *service* designation, while it is ubiquitous in the UK, according
to *trade journals*, *pricing lists*, and *business offerings*, variations
of 'viewing' are more standard. A sampling of multi-lingual marketing
materials shows that translations of 'viewing' are common with exception of
French.
My suggestion would be '*viewing_arrangements*' as a generic international
term amicable to translation which encompasses the incredibly diverse on
and off premises, public and private, and religious and cultural
variations.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

[Michael Patrick]

gt;
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:55:25 +0200
> From: Peter Elderson 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)
> Message-ID: <558fde2f-6c72-4a75-acf3-4442b1281...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Funeral viewing room sounds like a room where you can view the funeral. I
> suspect modern ones have very large screens and nice sound effects.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> > Op 27 sep. 2020 om 19:39 heeft woll...@posteo.de het volgende
> geschreven:
> >
> > "In any case, the proposer seems to feel that chapel of rest
> > should be used only for dedicated buildings and a different
> > tag should be added to indicate a funeral director's with a
> > viewing room."
> > The proposer feels that a subtag should be used for a funeral director's
> with a viewing room. But the proposer's preference goes to using the same
> term for the amenity tag and for the subtag (examples given in the
> proposal).
> >
> > At the same time, may I ask for comments on "funeral viewing rooms"?
> Apart from its length, it only seems to have advantages.
> >
> > Am 27.09.2020 13:55 schrieb Paul Allen:
> >> On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 10:02, Michael Patrick 
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Paul Allen 
> >>>>> Problem 1. "Viewing Service" is the name of a process, not the
> >>>> name
> >>>>> of the building or room it takes place in. "Turn left after
> >>>> the Viewing
> >>>>> Service" > makes no sense, any more than "Turn right after the
> >>>> prayer" as an alternative to "Turn right after the church."
> >>> Mmmm  I agree, that's my point. 'Chapel of Rest' isn't a place,
> >>> at best it
> >>> sometimes might be a dedicated room in a funeral establishment.
> >>> Apparently,
> >>> it is not infrequently the showroom for caskets if a larger
> >>> attendance needs to
> >>> be accommodated.
> >> It may be as you state it in some cases.  It is not true of all.
> >> Here's
> >> one where the chapel of rest is a building solely for that purpose:
> >> https://www.colinphillipsfunerals.com/our-services/private-chapel/ [6]
> >> That does not serve any other purpose.  It is not his offices or
> >> showroom.  I know of another one like that a few miles from it.
> >> Also, a chapel, even in the religious sense, is not necessarily a
> >> separate building.  It originally referred to a small room within
> >> a church with its own altar, or a room with an alta in a
> >> non-religious building.
> >> In any case, the proposer seems to feel that chapel of rest
> >> should be used only for dedicated buildings and a different
> >> tag should be added to indicate a funeral director's with a
> >> viewing room.
> >>>>> Problem 2. "Viewing service" implies some sort of formalized
> >>>> event,
> >>>>> probably religious with a speaker delivering a eulogy. A
> >>>> Chapel of
> >>>>> Rest is for looking at a dead body, with no formal ceremony.
> >>>> Possibly
> >>>>> in complete silence. Possible with only one live person in the
> >>>> room.
> >>>>> Contrast this with a religious service, which has prayers,
> >>>> hymns,
> >>>>> a sermon, bouts of kneeling, etc.
> >>> Connotation of 'service' as in 'floral service', embalming service',
> >>> 'cremation service' or otherwise business task / activity like
> >>> 'automotive repair service', rather than the religious service
> >>> denotation like a mass.
> >> I wouldn't expect a religious service at a florist or a car mechanic.
> >> When it comes
> >> to funerals, however...
> >>> From the US Federal Trade Checklist at
> >>
> https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist
> >>> [1]
> >>> Visitation/viewing — staff and facilities __
> >>> Funeral or memorial service — staff and facilities __
> >>> Graveside service, including staff and equipment __
> >> That's nice.  But it's not British English.  You can, however, use it
> >> to argue that editor translations for US English should use visitation
> >> for the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

[Michael Patrick]

> >> From: Paul Allen 
> >> The euphemistic 'Chapel of Rest' is more generically known as 'Viewing /
> > >Visitation Service', most commonly a room(s) where folks can pay their
> > >respects outside the ceremony itself,minimally with a guest registry,
> >> sometimes with scheduled hours, etc.
>
>
> > Problem 1.  "Viewing Service" is the name of a process, not the name
> > of the building or room it takes place in.  "Turn left after the Viewing
> > Service" > makes no sense, any more than "Turn right after the prayer"
> as an alternative to "Turn right after the church."


Mmmm  I agree, that's my point. 'Chapel of Rest' isn't a place, at best
it
sometimes might be a dedicated room in a funeral establishment. Apparently,
it is not infrequently the showroom for caskets if a larger attendance
needs to
be accommodated.

> Problem 2.  "Viewing service" implies some sort of formalized event,
> > probably religious with a speaker delivering a eulogy.  A Chapel of
> > Rest is for looking at a dead body, with no formal ceremony.  Possibly
> > in complete silence.  Possible with only one live person in the room.
> > Contrast this with a religious service, which has prayers, hymns,
> > a sermon, bouts of kneeling, etc.
>

Connotation of 'service' as in 'floral service', embalming service',
'cremation service' or otherwise business task / activity like 'automotive
repair service', rather than the religious service denotation like a mass.

>From the US Federal Trade Checklist at
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0301-funeral-costs-and-pricing-checklist


*   Visitation/viewing — staff and facilities __   Funeral or
memorial service — staff and facilities __   Graveside service,
including staff and equipment __*
UK funeral industry shows both 'Chapel of Rest', or that term with
visitation / viewing, some just have 'venue rental'. CoR is fairly
typical.

> Problem 3.  I've not encountered that term as a synonym for a chapel of
> > rest.  But I've not looked very hard.  Citation needed.
>
https://funeralresources.com/resources/viewing-and-visitation-costs/
https://funerals.org/?consumers=read-funeral-home-price-list/
https://www.thefuneralsite.com/ResourceCenters/Costs/How_much.html
... and hundreds more. Canada seems to be similar to the US.

Viewing / Visitation seem to translate well
https://www.floridafuneralhome.com/Content/Media/FloridaFuneralHomeAndCrematory/Spa%20-%20Crem%20w%20View%202018-07-01.pdf
 زيارة مشاهدة الجنازة ( Arabic ) goes to 'Funeral watch visit', i.e. it
survives round trips through google Translate.

'Chapel of Rest' seems to be one of those terms like 'Take the goat to the
butcher and have the butcher butcher the animal into cuts of meat.' The
location takes on the name of an ephemeral activity that occurs in it, or
the entity temporarily occupying it.

Michael Patrick



<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

[Michael Patrick]

One could always refer to the industry codes and subcodes that define
product or service, for whatever jurisdiction. Along with industry trade
publications - 'Chapel of Rest' seems to be a dated UK specific term (
similar to  the US term 'undertaker') , whereas viewing / visitation would
be perfectly understood in the UK and pretty much translate to other
languages as well.

The euphemistic 'Chapel of Rest' is more generically known as 'Viewing /
Visitation Service', most commonly a room(s) where folks can pay their
respects outside the ceremony itself,minimally with a guest registry,
sometimes with scheduled hours, etc.

The 'Viewing Service' ( similar to other services, like the florists ) can
range from none, once it was basically a small rooms the size of a large
closet off a hallway, all the way up to full catered banquet facility for
some cultures ( I once went to one in Detroit, where the open casket and
reception line was right there with tables of people eating brunch
('wake')).

Michael Patrick


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 130, Issue 21

[Michael Patrick]

> > global coverage datasets tend to be so generalized and large scale that
> they often do not fit well with the human scale that we survey on the
> ground.
>

In my area of the world, https://soilgrids.org/ shows about 600ft, and the
types pretty well match up with the ground around here. So, well within
walking distance (for me, a mile radius ) scale. As data accumulates from
repeated SAR passes, that will probably drop considerably in the next few
years. URBAN-TEP ( https://urban-tep.eu/puma/tool/?id=574795484=en
)has global data ranging from 5 meters to tens of meters. And these are
derived normalized data, the raw observational data is much better in some
regions ( See their projects page ). The resolution is more determined by
maintaining a global 90% bar than the underlying observations.
Not your backyard, but considerably better than what has been available:
"Worldwide inventory of human settlements (urban & rural) using one global
coverage of SAR data with 0.4 arcsec (~12 m) ground resolution collected by
the satellites TerraSAR-X / TanDEM-X in 2011-2013."


Michael Patrick



<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#m_-2629699592009406589_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Michael Patrick]

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

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

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

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

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

Your mileage may vary.

Michael Patrick


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Urgent Care

[Michael Patrick]

> Can someone confirm if "urgent_care" makes sense in British English,
> rather than "walk-in" or something else?
>

It isn't like there isn't already a categorization scheme, harmonized
globally, with translations available in most languages ( not only English
). Or, alternatively, spend the next decade organically expanding an ad hoc
tagging scheme that eventually collapses under edge cases. Neither of those
terms are definitive, they are flavors of ambulatory care which range from
flu shots given by pharmacists to actual minor surgery capable ( non-IV,
non-anesthesia ) housed in major retail chains - like
https://washington.providence.org/locations-directory/e/express-care-walgreens-mukilteo
. Pandemic-wise, one could probably perceive the utility in harmonization
with everybody else's established categorization schemes rather than
inventing an incomplete new one. IMHO, at least.

*United Nations Standard Products and Services Code® (UNSPSC®), managed by
GS1 US™ for the UN Development Programme (UNDP), is an open, global,
multi-sector standard for efficient, accurate classification of products
and services. UNSPSC is an efficient, accurate and flexible classification
system for achieving company-wide visibility of spend analysis, as well as,
enabling procurement to deliver on cost-effectiveness demands and allowing
full exploitation of electronic commerce capabilities. Encompassing a five
level hierarchical classification codeset, UNSPSC enables expenditure
analysis at grouping levels relevant to your needs. You can drill down or
up to the codeset to see more or less detail as is necessary for business
analysis. *

Repost below, regarding the term 'clinic', a previous 'definition' issue:
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

There are international taxonomies that define standards for the various
terms involved in healthcare provision ( like
*https://www.hl7.org/about/index.cfm?ref=nav*
<https://www.hl7.org/about/index.cfm?ref=nav> ). These are important for
many reasons, like Drs Without Borders may draw personnel from many
countries and integrate with local medical staff. For example:

*Definition:  *A facility or distinct part of one used for the diagnosis
and treatment of outpatients. "Clinic/center" is irregularly defined,
either including or excluding physician's offices and allied health
professionals, sometimes being limited to organizations serving specialized
treatment requirements or distinct patient/client groups (e.g., radiology,
poor, public health). *Source: * *Rhea, Ott, and Shafritz, The Facts On
File Dictionary of Health Care Management, New York: Facts On File
Publications, 1988; Lexikon: Dictionary of Health Care Terms, Organizations
and Acronyms for the Era of Reform, The Joint Commission on Accreditation
of Healthcare Organizations, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois: 1994, p. 185*"

( from
https://www.hl7.org/documentcenter/public/standards/vocabulary/vocabulary_tables/infrastructure/vocabulary/nuccProviderCodes.html
)

United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC)  at
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/unspsc-codes ) has a medical portion, but
fairly limited.There are some sites with easier to use interfaces:
http://www.wpc-edi.com/reference/codelists/healthcare/health-care-provider-taxonomy-code-set/

Yes, it's complicated. Most things in the real world are.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Michael Patrick]

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Pumps (wells and many other things)

[Michael Patrick]

 > you've a typo here, and it is worth pointing it out, that's meant to be
4000 years according to the link... interesting links.

> Since pumps have been a manufactured commodity for about 400 years ( 
> https://www.worldpumps.com/general-processing/features/a-brief-history-of-pumps/
> there is an abundance of existing typologies and taxonomies dealing with
> pumps.
>

Operative word here is 'commodity', as opposed to custom one off devices.
When something becomes an item of commerce, multiples are made, and
differentiate into distinct categories, which in turn means that industry
begins to develop a lexicon based on some mutually understood
classification system.  For ocean going vessels, this started with Lloyds
of London in 1760 eventually evolving into today's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Classification_Societies
... sometimes it maybe some sort of central publication like my copy of the
1556 "De Re Metallica" that unifies the lexicon: (
https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780486600062-us.jpg )
*"Originally published in 1556, Agricola's De Re Metallica was the first
book on mining to be based on field research and observation — what today
would be called the "scientific approach." It was therefore the first book
to offer detailed technical drawings to illustrate the various specialized
techniques of the many branches of mining, and the first to provide a
realistic history of mining from antiquity to the mid-sixteenth century.
For almost 200 years, Agricola remained the only authoritative work in this
area and by modern times it had become one of the most highly respected
scientific classics of all time. A book more often referred to in
literature on mining and metallurgy than any other"*
The central work for picking around that date was probably Decarte's
Hydrostatics Manuscript (
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Descartes-Hydrostatics-Manuscript-AT-X-69_fig1_323533598
), but there was a lot practical ground level stuff happening around that
time, and the concept of 'pump' became a first order category of it's own,
a technology and commodity, designed rather than a trial and error
tradition.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Pumps (wells and many other things)

[Michael Patrick]

Since pumps have been a manufactured commodity for about 400 years (
https://www.worldpumps.com/general-processing/features/a-brief-history-of-pumps/
) there is an abundance of existing typologies and taxonomies dealing with
pumps. If the goal is a general tagging scheme that can further be refined
when needed to more detailed descriptions, there is a fairly low delta from
a complete scheme compared to an incomplete one which will grow by random
accretion. See  IEEE GlobalSpec's Engineering360
https://www.globalspec.com/pfdetail/pumps/types
There are public domain classification systems available also, like *UNSPSC*
# *4015151 *takes you to a  Stainless Steel Deep Well Submersible Pump. See
the section " 2.2. Industrial Categorization Schemes and Product Data
Management
in 'Inter-organizational Networks" in Integrated Product Ontologies for
Inter-Organizational Networks' at
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c471/40672c0c2e5a34c098fcd2809185537ee985.pdf
As a bonus, the UNSPSC is already translated to English, French, German,
Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Mandarin Chinese, Portuguese,
Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Hungarian.W3C has somewhat detailed
instructions how to approach building a typology for the .many other
things', one at
https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/w3pm/XGR-w3pm-20091008/#B.12 , there are
similar simpler cookbooks out there.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Michael Patrick]

> There is no reason for the Baltic Sea to be the "Baltic Sea"
or for South America to be "South America" - this is an example
of English imperialism.

Mostly British Imperialism, almost every town in the U.S. has
a namesake in the UK - if you look at nautical charts, Spanish
dominates. History has happened. But I digress.

There is a 'reason'. Toponyms at all levels are established
by naming authorities and conventions at from the village
to the international level, for all sorts of domains. The
key point is, the locality decides, not outsiders - there
is no rationalization for you to give any name preference
until you have consulted with them and documented that
cooperation. Otherwise you are just using OSM as a
platform for your own flavor of 'techno-imperialism'.

Fluent bilingual persons are 43% of world population,
and trilingual are13% of world population - and many,
many more have a minimal ability, less than fluent. You
should do some serious study of the geography of
languages. Notably, administrative boundaries have
almost no relation to language prevalence areas.

Also, you seem to have a deep fundamental misconception
about what a 'tag' really is. OSM is a *software* system. While
a tag and it's values superficially resembles a piece of
natural language, and can appear as a label, that is a
coincidence. In the software system they are no different
than commands in a computer language - 'forest' causes
green shade in an area. The effect of your suggestion is
essentially the same as having a unique Polish version
of Python and expecting every other developer to 'look it
up and translate' when encountering your code:

dla xw zakresie(0, 3):
wydrukować("Jesteśmy na czas",xw ))
Without at least one common lexicon to crosswalk from,
whether it's English or Chinese, the whole thing breaks.

> Any data will not be lost - programs will be able to extract the
desired name from the tags name:en, name:pl, etc., Wikipedia
links will be available via Wikidata.

Data is lost. You are making a huge assumption that
all transformations are equivalent and reversible. With
toponyms, they are absolutely not. Before you under
take this project read https://tinyurl.com/yhdph2cn and,
( why not? ) the Toponymy Training Manual From the
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical
Names, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
https://tinyurl.com/yjhpgsqa  If you don't read these, I
assume the proposal is just 'theater'.

Your Wikidata suggestion is fails on the basis of
synchronization. What mechanism alerts an
OSM consumer that a Wikidata entry has changed?

There aren't any 'neutral' natural languages. They
have many roots, continually incorporate words
from other languages, and some die off.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 123, Issue 48

[Michael Patrick]

> An agreement must be reached on the names of international
> objects. It is currently unregulated and these names
> introduced a few years ago are almost always in imperialist
> English, which is not always appropriate and discriminates
> against other nations. ... 1. I suggest removing the "name"
> .. and "wikipedia" tags completely ... 2. For seas and bays
> marked as place=sea) I suggest to enter in the "name" tag
> names in the official languages of neighboring countries

>>  international air pilots and by international agreement use English
>> as a means of communication. international sailors who, again by
>>  international agreement use 'seaspeak'. Seaspeak in based on English.

Aviation English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_English

Wikipedia is not an 'authoritative source'. For a long time now,
these geonames (toponyms) have been harmonized by various international
and national agencies and organizations. In 1948, the  United Nations
Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) was
established as a clearing house:  https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ungegn/ ...

Most all nations have some sort of 'Names Board' authority ( Germany:
http://www.stagn.de/DE/Home/home_node.html ), and some have
such for lower admin levels (Oregon Geographic Names Board
https://www.ohs.org/about-us/affiliates-and-partners/oregon-geographic-names-board/
)
There are also organizations actively establishing aboriginal / indigenous
toponym gazetteers and updating the 'official' repositories.

Probably the most comprehensive source for international toponyms is
the U.S. National Geospatial Agency NGA GEOnet Names Server (GNS)
http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html the gazetteer at
http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ ... a query can return eleven name
types ( Conventional, Approved BGN, Unverified, Provisional, Variant,
Anglicized Variant, Native Script, Unverified Native Script, Provisional
Native Script, Variant Native Script ) if available. Note that this
database not only includes 'official' but informal local variants and
past 'official' names. They update every week, all the data is
available for download in various formats, and they exchange data
with other geoname authorities.

For smaller scale maps showing the feature types you mention,
this source can probably provide you the various transliterations
of geonames in a region. For larger scales, depending on the
country, the local board may provide similar data.

Reference:  ( Open Access ) "A quantitative analysis of global
gazetteers: Patterns of coverage for common feature types"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198971516302496

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[Michael Patrick]

> I was wondering how to tag Seveso sites. [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2012/18/EU

Read the actual directive, and drill down. Basically, it's up to each
nation to decide the categorization. And if you dive further down into
that, the reporting requirements may or may not give you any but the most
general geographical information, and very little to assess what the
potential hazard might be. One example I looked at, for instance stated
that certain chemicals were present onsite, but for a microchip
manufacturer that could be a single bottle on the shelf - on the other
hand, any bulk chemical processing facility might have tens of railroad
tanker cars lined up. As far as I could tell, there may not actually be any
on site, they are simply 'registered' to store it for use. Another factor
is that businesses startup and shutdown, so like all bureaucratic
procedural information, what is the plan for continuous maintenance?

> I see an interest to tag these sites as there are many of them and the
information of public interest.

Other nefarious parties are also interested. So. the addresses in some
cases are only the administrative 'home office', not the exact locations,
which are to be given to the local law enforcement, fire, and other
emergency responders - which makes sense because otherwise it would provide
a ready target list for thieves and terrorists ( there is an entire federal
agency division dedicated to this in the U.S.
https://www.dhs.gov/cisa/chemical-security ).

> Any suggestion what tagging scheme to use ?

Use the tagging ( categorization ) scheme the regulatory agency themselves
uses to classify these sites.

If you by chance mean historical sites, that presents another set of
issues. I live a couple blocks from
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1000614  and it
is profoundly uninteresting because it has been stabilized for decades.
Much different than
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=1001114 which
has huge leaking tanks of radioactive stew that could kill a exposed human
within seconds.

> But I barely find some site tagged in practice, ...

Probably because they ran into the issues above. My inclination is that
this is a good case where OSM should be combined as a layer in Leaflet with
an available map
http://geobru.irisnet.be/en/maps/monitoring-of-pollution-associated-with-seveso-site/69/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

[Michael Patrick]

> > what I meant was that we might want to distinguish between those that
> show information and those that show traffic signs to which you must obey.
>

There is no way to distinguish this, unless you have access to the
programming, and a fair number are automated to flex to traffic
conditions.

The various American standards show these as Dynamic Messaging Signs, with
other older content showing "character-matrix" Variable Messaging Signs,
mostly with the 'text only' as VMS and the more modern "full-matrix"
graphic technology as DMS. Other sources say the opposite.

In Europe, they are still mostly known as VMS, there is some discussion
here:
See "Dynamic message signs: differences between Europe and North America"
https://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/opinion/dynamic-message-signs-differences-between-europe-and-north-america.html

The international ISO standards for intelligent traffic systems say "NOTE:
A Variable Message Sign is also named dynamic message sign. Both terms are
considered as synonyms and can be used interchangeably."

On that basis, the Solomon's choice (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon ) would be to use to tag
them something along the lines of "DMS/VMS","DMS-VMS", because almost every
source (North American, British, European, etc.)  I found uses that sort of
contraction as the convention, including the manufacturers. For any
sub-tagging, the standards bust out further details according to the
display tech, fixed or mobile, size, etc.

The ones that change state according to a single variable or condition,
like only speed, or lane open/closed, chains required, road flooded, etc.
IMHO are more akin to the normal signs, in that even a normal parking sign
has 'variability' of states built into the message.

Ref:
https://www.nema.org/Standards/Pages/Hardware-Standards-for-Dynamic-Message-Signs-with-NTCIP-Requirements.aspx
https://blog.ansi.org/2017/02/dynamic-message-signs-dms-electronic-road/#gref

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 121, Issue 97

[Michael Patrick]

> Looking at the US NHD estuary is broadly defined

NOAA keeps track of the estuaries. And the states have fairly extensive
data available:
https://www.coastalatlas.net/?option=com_jumi=application=8=20=107

Estuary is a generic term that covers five basic types, which have quite
different in the characteristics that define them, beyond the general
'river going into the see' aspect. A Norwegian fjord and a mudflat can both
be estuaries. Once you identify the type ( and since they are hugely
important to global fisheries and other stakeholders, almost certainly
someone has already identified the type
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries04_geology.html
), how the various feature boundaries are to be handled in OSM isn't too
difficult.

The ocean edge of the estuary if defined by if it is tide-dominated,
wave-dominated, or river-dominated. That determines if you have have a Bay
of Fundy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Fundy estuary, Bay of Fundy,
a Mississippi River type of delta, or a Columbia River situation where the
river channel pretty much extends to the sea. That can be generally
indicated in a tide table according to three basic buckets >4 meters, 2-4
meters, and less than 2 meters.

>>>> but I think we'll have problems defining it?

Only if you try to make the same scheme apply to all five ( coastal plain
<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/supp_estuar04_coastal.html>,
bar-built
<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/supp_estuar04_barbuilt.html>,
deltas
<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/supp_estuar04_delta.html>,
tectonic
<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/supp_estuar04_techtonic.html>
and fjords
<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/supp_estuar04_fjord.html>
).

The 'cartographic' derived concept that there is just some sort of simple
idealized 'coastline' is a fiction, and at the scale of human beings, not a
very useful one. There isn't land and sea, there is land, sea, and a third
'coastal', which is land and sea changing several times a day and
dramatically on a monthly and annual basis.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Michael Patrick]

> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle
>
> >  Sorry Clifford, but these are simply footways for pedestrians and can
> be
> mapped as such.  I don't see anything that makes it necessary for a
> new tag
>

They aren't simple, if you've ever had to incorporate all the various
design features required ( International, Federal, State, County, and
Municipal rules ), also, they usually have regulatory and legal aspects
attached to them that make them different - for instance, electric v.
vehicles are allowed, use restrictions, etc.

+1 for Clifford
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Areas of bare soil (clay, silt, loam) such as badlands?

[Michael Patrick]

Reference: Badlands , Encyclopedia of Geomorphology ,http://bit.ly/2PagW8f

> but this is rather specific and may not be well-known outside of North 
> America:

'Badlands' exist all over the world. They might have local nomenclature,
but they are specific type of landform recognized by the international
scientific community.

> But most of those could be scree or shingle, which would be more specific
... Would it be best to describe the type of soil, like natural=clay,
=silt, =earth, =pebbles, =gravel? ... Should mappers use surface=* without
another top-level tag?... Should natural=bare_earth be used in general for
clay and other bare soils?

Badlands are continuously erosional features, so you will find all of those
( and more ) in a badlands zone, often changing over a span of a couple of
meters.

> Or is natural=badlands best to describe the specific feature of an arid
area where the bare soil is exposed due to erosion?

Yes. They are defined geologically by the process, continual erosion, and
most prominently by the shape of the land: basically everything is a gully
or ridge, with fairly steep slopes between them. there might be transient
flat areas where sediments collect temporarily, but those are then cut
again by erosion. And a few flat areas where harder bedrock is exposed. At
the margins above and below the badland watershed / erosional zone are
usually more continuous land forms and slopes.

An arid climate is not necessarily a characteristic. They are are found in
all climate zones, the amount and timing of precipitation affects the
occurrence, size, and speed of growth. And they may not even be 'natural':
"... Badlands are common in areas with at least seasonal drought, in
semi-arid and arid areas, Mediterranean and dry-season tropical areas.
However, they also occur in humid
regions, for example on eroding coastal and river cliffs. Badlands may
result from natural
processes, but their extent may be accentuated by human activity. Some
badlands may be the result of human-induced soil erosion."

> ... wouldn't it be useful to add, in addition to OSM-specific tags like 
> natural=bare_rock,
natural=shingle,  natural=scree, ... a tag to reference standard land
cover classification?

+1
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, and varies between excellent and
poor, and a lay person would find it hard to tell the difference.

>  The CLC is based on 1:100.000 scale satellite imagery, so it can't be as
specific as what OpenStreetMap users can tag with local knowledge and
aerial imagery.

The final data product is aggregated, but the original imagery is much,
much better than that - the 'mapping' ( cartographic ) scale is different
than the data model. . The classification system itself is probably still
valid a finer resolutions - past the upper level it drills down into more
specific categories like "2.4.3 Land principally occupied by agriculture,
with significant areas of natural vegetation" . Corine's classification
system is very coarse, like USGS NLCD it is meant for continental scale
changes. There are more specific standard classification systems for finer
levels of landscape details, like FAO
http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/x0596e01f.htm#p971_94150
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Michael Patrick]

>  There are too many on both sides who insist that their way is the one
true way.

Actually, there is something pretty close to 'one TRUE way'. There are some
things in the Dataverse that are used by everybody, and everybody uses
everybody else's stuff. And when the Internet arrived they set up common
meanings for the very most common concepts. Like phone numbers.

Schema.org <https://schema.org/> is a collaborative, community activity
with a mission to create, maintain, and promote schemas for structured data
on the Internet, on web pages, in email messages, and beyond Founded by
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Yandex, Schema.org vocabularies are developed
by an open community <https://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg> process,
using the public-schema...@w3.org
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemaorg> mailing list and
through GitHub <http://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg>.

See click the ' JSON-LD ' tab on Example 2 at
https://schema.org/ContactPoint#HearingImpairedSupported-gen-208 ( on
https://schema.org/ContactPoint ) which shows how phone numbers play out
for even small businesses in the world.

Yea, yeah, it's complicated, or at least the specification is, but rarely
are doers and users exposed to the full complexity, just the simple subset
of what is needed for a particular use case. Something like a phone number
looks like a discrete 'thing', but it's not. It's a relationship between
other things.

'... many on both sides who insist that their way is the one true way' is
essentially a manifestation of of the 'Blind men and an elephant' (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_parable )
situation. While all the blind men will never agree, if the blind men with
the ear, the trunk, and the tusk ask questions of someone that can see the
whole elephant, they can come up with a functional meaning that covers the
at least the head. There's probably no 'tagging' situation in OSM that
wasn't solved by the resolution of *Electronic data interchange* (*EDI*)
issues in the period between 1970 to 1998.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Gorges, Canyons, Ravines: natural=valley or new tag?

[Michael Patrick]

> Also, Wikipedia basically says ravine, gorge and canyon are synonyms,
> though as an American from the West, I tend to think of canyons as having
> vertical, rock cliffs, vs ravines and gorges as less steep, but this may
be
> a dialectal difference. ...  Thoughts on this?

1. Wikipedia ( and encyclopedias ) and dictionaries are not authoritative,
in the sense that they provide very superficial general descriptions. Check
the 'references section, and sometimes, with luck, the Wikipedia talk tab
on the page will have references.In this case not.

2. The Proper Name ( map label ) of a feature usually does not correspond
with a formal definition. I.e., the 'Turtle Mountains' in North Dakota (
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/NDNotes/images/nn15f6.jpg ) hardly count as
hills elsewhere.

3. There is a science, probably close to 2 thousand years old (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology#History ) that has been naming
natural things and a sub-field called 'Geomorphology' ( approx. a 150 years
old ) which classifies and characterizes similarities and differences,
applying a specific common nomenclature. This is useful when writing papers
and journals so other people globaly know exactly what they are talking
about, and in a practical sense so that Nepalese climbing tourists don't
pack their carabiners when on expeditions to the Turtle Mountains in ND.

4. These folks have their own 'Encyclopedia of Geomorphology', which gives
detailed explanations of what sorts of observable features define a term,
and where terms overlap. ( See page 486 'Ravines and Gullies at
http://bit.ly/2YJca7I ). Various agencies in various countries dealing with
geomorphology nomenclature also publish there own glossaries ( see Part
629–Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms at
https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=41992.wba
), derived from an American Geologic Institute (AGI) publication.

5. For international features, the National Geospatial Agency GeoNames
Search page ( http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ ) enables you to look up
the classifications, and what they are called in the local language(s).Open
up the Feature Designations section, and scan through the 'Hypsographic'
listing, and you'll see CNYN/Canyon, searching on Mexico, it gives 1732
cañada. You also get direct links to mapping services so you can look at
the features.

6. Google Image search can be helpful if you are more visually oriented:
http://bit.ly/2H64zVL

> ravine, gorge and canyon are synonyms
They are not, sometimes, in certain parts of the world ravines and gorges
are, but you can find gorges inside of  canyons.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=window(s) incorrectly deprecated in favor of craft=window_construction ?

[Michael Patrick]

> The obvious tag is
>  shop=trade
>  and
>  trade= ???  ...

The most obvious tagging scheme for a world wide database like OSM would be
to use the commercial classification system in effect in a particular
jurisdiction.

In the U.S. that's NAICS, the U.K. has one, the EU and practically every
country in the world has one or uses on of the broader ones. The U.N. has a
very generic one. And there are published crosswalk tables and utilities
between the different systems.

They are all hierarchical, i.e. they have very very broad simple generic
categories at the top ( 20 for NAICS ) but also allow one to drill down to
the very, very specific - and the common search engines will provide the
detailed label with a simple query like Googling "NAICS Code NAICS code
bubble tea stand" gives "NAICS Code 722515 - Snack and Nonalcoholic
Beverage Bars",  '... establishments primarily engaged in (1) preparing
and/or serving a specialty snack, such as ice cream, frozen yogurt,
cookies, or popcorn, or (2) serving nonalcoholic beverages, such as coffee,
juices, or sodas for consumption on or near the premises. These
establishments may carry and sell a combination of snack, nonalcoholic
beverage, and other related products (e.g., coffee beans, mugs, coffee
makers) but generally promote and sell a unique snack or nonalcoholic
beverage." with examples.

They also provide links to alternative and related, more general, and more
specific categories. Even if someone goofs a designation, the goof will
usually still be very close to the actual one.

Also, to some degree, usually the code(s) for a particular business is
public record at the municipal, county, state/province, and national level,
it's on their posted business license, it appears on a roll or listing
somewhere. If the business is ad hoc or unlicensed, it's trivial to get the
classification by looking up the code for a similar licensed business.

It accommodates the very common situation where an establishment provides
multiple levels, like manufactures cabinets from raw materials, ships them
and distributes them wholesale regionally, and retails them over the
counter to individuals from their showroom.

The benefits to data providers and consumers are fairly obvious.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold

[Michael Patrick]

> lit=weak is too subjective.
> disclaimer: I am trying to make lit=yes/no definition more precise as
> part of my grant
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/368849

There is a lot of open access academic literature on your topic, covering
objective measures and both subjective indicators and how to derive
objective means from subjective factors. There is also more than a few
international and national design standards, guidelines, and other to form
the basis of your own 'definition'.

For example "Pedestrian and bike path illumination for safety and security:
empirical pre- and  post-field studies by a university team" at
https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/UT13/UT13060FU1.pdf


You'd probably be okay using the 10 lux indicated by the Illuminating
Engineering Society. But considering that the illuminate area is uneven ( a
notion also covered in the standard ) and usually fairly extensive, and
illumination measurement is a technical skill, and it is a moving target
because of the daily cycle and weather, it probably isn't practical o
expect some member of the general public to collect the data.

However, there is also a considerable work that has been done for measuring
direct and ambient light levels by remote sensing, and correlating those
with on the ground conditions - the only practical way to cover any
significant area since values can be accumulated over time ( by hour to
seasonal ). See
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S036013231830550X-fx1_lrg.jpg
and
https://res.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01964/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-10-01964-g001.png

It still leaves the question how you'd apply any data to a way element - do
you break it into smaller segments to apply differing values as they change
along the route?

Also, what is the specific use case? i.e. is 'lit' really a proxy for some
aspect of safety or reassurance, in which case the illumination level
doesn't matter at all, rather the unevenness, sight lines, and other
factors that affect a (only?) pedestrian's feeling of reassurance and
safety. For instance, no matter how bright a path itself is lit, if that
lighting  produces impenetrable shadows within arms length of my path, it
feels dangerous - an conversely, a unlit wide open field of short grass
feels perfectly safe.

This is a well researched topic, since, like 1285, when English King Edward
I forced property owners to clear highway edges of trees and shrubs. :-)

Michael Patrick
Geographer


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wiki page for natural=mountain_range

[Michael Patrick]

> Warning - my interpretation!
> SADDLE = low point between two high points (mountains), it does not
> descend near the level of the adjacent valleys.

> PASS =A gap in a range of mountains or hills permitting easier passage
> from one side to the other, it descends near the level of the adjacent
> valleys.

> This gives me a difference between 'pass' and 'saddle',otherwise they
> appear to be the same?
> If it were a 'pass' then that would make the range into two separate ways.
> If it is a saddle then it does not break the range, but forms part of it.

> Some mountain ranges do not have crest along their entire length .. yet
> they are a mountain range along the entire length.

'Pass' is almost irrelevant to the observable geomorphology ( 'land forms'
)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/geomorphology
Pass is actually more of a 'route', similar to a nautical 'passage', which
while it has a 'highest point' somewhere, may have several ups and downs.
Some, like Big Hole Pass and Bridger on Montana State Route 287 are pretty
much indistinguishable from the rolling flats around them, the mountains
are in the distance. Some, in the American West are thousands of feet above
the valley floors ( Beartooth Pass, Wyoming, USA ). The pass doesn't even
necessarily route through a local minimum like a col, notch, or saddle,
which frequently are canyons, but rather the shoulder of slopes. Further,
there's a few that don't even connect adjacent watersheds, they weave
between saddles of a crest, passing through multiple watersheds until
finally dropping to a valley floor. There's a couple in Wyoming that more
or less go over the peak of a single mountain.

Ranges, paradoxically, aren't defined by the highest features like peaks
and crests, they are distinguished from surrounding terrain by contiguous
slope realms, usually back slope, foot slope, and toe slope. Basically, at
whatever scale, there is a basal concavity ( http://bit.ly/2H9nn5O ) shared
by higher elevations, which marks the transitions - in the case of the
Cascades or Rockies, thousands of miles, in Montana sometimes tens of
miles. Within the Rocky Mountain Range (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountains ) which contain the Sawtooth
Montain Range ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_Range_(Idaho) ). The
Front Range of the Rocky Mountain Range consists of several smaller ranges
- see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_ranges_of_Colorado#Mountain_ranges

The central highest features of a range are perhaps helpful for labeling
purposes, but don't really define the mountain range - it is an area. In
less dramatic ranges, sometimes it's easier to look at the interfluves (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfluve ), like for
https://www.ndhorizons.com/articles/29/summer-2006-north-dakota-s-mountains.aspx

Also, 'saddles' are only one very specific type of local minimum between
peaks that have two orthogonal continuous curvatures at a local minimum and
maximum. There are other geomorhological terms like cols, notches, that
account for discontinuous situations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col ).
There already exists classification keys for these landforms which are used
in automated terrain analysis. ( see the classic
https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploads/pers/1993journal/sep/1993_sep_1409-1417.pdf
, which validated the defining features mentioned above against the
existing nomenclature, and the links on
http://www0.sun.ac.za/cga/portfolio-items/terrain-analysis/ ).

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
OSM Seattle
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

[Michael Patrick]

 > The idea that every object, even among those that can be easily mapped
in a day, has a single True Name, is simply an incorrect assumption
around here.

A few months ago, I went to a mixer hosted by a new online real estate
startup, and the attendees were an interesting mix of neighborhood low
income housing activists, property managers, and city officials.

I was noticed some of their listing had notations that the property was in
'neighborhood Y', when actually it was, IMHO, in 'neighborhood X' because I
had lived their, and according to the city 'association' map, it was in
'neighborhood Z'. Now, 'neighborhood X' had historically been of somewhat
ill repute ( like newspaper crime and environmental reporting ), and 'X'
had some fairly definite walking, connectivity, commerce ( The' X Market'
), and boundary elements.

The city people admitted that their map was made quickly and they had
basically used Census boundaries and never checked with anyone, and nobody
ever complained, and said they were really open to changing it, that it was
only a temporary place holder. The activist noted their neighborhood had
been divided and assigned to two others, essentially erasing their
semi-official status. The property management people were looking really
uncomfortable, and as I continued scanning the listings, found that they
had invented a few new 'plausible' neighborhoods 'neighborhood "T Street'
and 'neighborhood S Street' and assigned some listings to the higher income
'neighborhood Y'. When I pressed them, they said it was because they could
charge higher lease rates, and based on client feedback, nobody wanted to
live in 'neighborhood X' when a Google Search was done.

I gave the start-up founder my copy of 'Seattle Geographies' in sympathy,
advised him to read it, and left before the serious blood letting began:
http://www.aag.org/cs/aag_bookstore/other_publications/seattle_geographies

There's been a long term feud going about the local 'International
District':
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/name-feud-clouds-opening-of-library/

+1 on "There is no single True Name"

Kenny, that was an absolutely wonderful post on New England geographies.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Michael Patrick]

>> But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no
>>  physical presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and
>>  current” feature that is appropriate for OSM rather than a historical
>>  map.

> If the name is still in present use then it belongs in OSM, even if
> there is no physical presence on the ground people still use the name to
> define the place.

We might get some ideas about how to handle these issues about what goes on
the map from organizations that have already dealt with them ( some like
the British Ordnance Survey, over hundreds of years ). They publish their
naming policies ( Toponymic Nomenclature  ), and almost every country ( and
the U.N. ) has one, The U.N. links to these from
https://unstats.un.org/Unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/nna.html and the Canadian one,
for example is at
https://unstats.un.org/Unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/NNA/GNBC_english_accessible.pdf
- refer to 'Principle 2', for example: "NAMES IN GENERAL PUBLIC USE" - First
priority shall be given to names with long-standing local usage by the general
public. Unless there are good reasons to the contrary, this principle should
prevail. Most U.S. states also have a board:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20615877?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Unlike most agency documents, these can be a pretty fun read, imaging the
arguments that created the item in the first place: " ... Examples are
Pekwachnamaykoskwaskwaypinwanik
Lake in Manitoba and Île Kuchistiniwamiskahikan in Quebec."!

Remote mapping, it is really hard to tell if a name is in use locally, and
frequently I've encountered names like 'Jackson's Barn' that the original
landmark rotted away fifty years ago.


> but when the thing is gone, (a rail line stop that is no longer there),
or is a collection of larger items that get named like a city or a village
- yet have zero residents - seems like a good use for locality to me.

+1

> Thus mesas and buttes could be mapped as nodes or areas, but plateaus
could only be mapped as nodes. Thoughts?

I scanned the NGA name server, and plateaus seem to be large areas, and
mapped as points.

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

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

[Michael Patrick]

... INRE: http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj

> Nobody proposed ban on mapping things far away from your place of
residence.

> That's an amazing image, thanks Michael.

Hmmm ... it's not a really a bona fide 'map',
per se,it's really just a silly snarky sarcastic
cartoon based on narrow assumptions and
a highly suspect data model - inspired by
my personal knee jerk reaction to other
community members perfectly justifiable
philosophies of what OSM 'is'.

> I take it that's the home location of all OSM contributors?

Ummm ... No, I stated a hypothetical 'What
if' scenario: " If everyone on Earth joined OSM ...",
so the 'locations' are based on the entire
global population derived from:*"*Center for
International Earth Science Information Network
- CIESIN - Columbia University. 2016. Gridded
Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4):
Population Density. Palisades, NY: NASA
Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center
(SEDAC). http://dx.doi.org/10.7927/H4NP22DQ
that I use frequently.

I also do time space / mapping, so for the second
'constraint', '...and limited their mapping to their
own local knowledge', from my knowledge of
Torsten Hägerstrand's ( et. al. ) framework of
time / space trajectories of individual humans
in the environment, I made S.W.A.G. to get a
'home range' of our set of global mappers.
( https://www.spektrum.de/lexika/images/geogr/fff59_w.jpg ).
I then made a mad leap to a conclusion that this
'range' was approximately the same as the grid
size. ( maybe not so mad, there is a vast literature
around this: http://meipokwan.org/Gallery/STPaths.htm
... and some folks have even extended the model into
'virtual spaces' like WoW ).

I then sampled some area like the middle of the
Sahara, Siberia, Yukon Territory to get a lower
bound ( nobody lives here ) and did a blunt
overly simplified binary classification, and used
this as a mask to punch out the OSM world map.

The projection used is psychological, not
geographical ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection ).

> ... also a bit surprised that Australia & NZ have
dropped back into the Ocean - I thought there
were a few more of us than that? ..

See http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-density/
Australia is 225 ( out of 230 ) and NZ is 198.
It's actually even more dramatic than this,
the Australian Census even has a special
distinction for remote areas. It's also an
artifact of the population dataset in
relation to the resolution of the final
graphic. If you are feeling left out, I
can adjust that single pixel value.

> (cc'ed to AU list for interest's sake :-))

Please tell them this wasn't serious, I
don't want to get kicked out of the union.

> Nice and funny illustration of OSM problems
with global and remote natural areas. How did
you create it?

Thank you, and see above. A little used
GIS tool called InkScape ( perfectly
good for doing raster analysis, most
'art' tools ( like 'burning', etc. ) are
equivalent to some GIS raster math.

> Nobody proposed ban on mapping
> things far away from your place of residence.

Embedded in Hägerstrand( et. al. ) is that
notion of what is 'near' and 'far' for an
individual and their experiences. I can
look out an airplane window and make
a pretty good guess what state I'm over
by the road network ( http://www.legallandconverter.com/images/RSS1.jpg ),
but while my neighbor gets lost walking
to the store - but he can tell you every
landmark in his online games. We're all
different.

> That would probably only add to this picture
some spots (remote settlements and touristic
attractions) and thin lines (along routes).And
probably only spots, if single day would be the limit.

You hit the nail on the head. Humans have
just so much attentional bandwidth.

> OSM started as a very local enterprise, but
the world is much wider, so we should rethink
how to deal with them, because the world is
not gonna shrink...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27875-earths-shrinking-crust-could-leave-us-living-on-a-water-world/
... but you do have a point, there. :-)

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

[Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

[Michael Patrick]

> ... As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> is otherwise verifiable of course.  ...

If everyone on Earth joined OSM and limited their mapping
to their own local knowledge using that rule of thumb, our map
would look like this :-)   http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj

Also, in regard to how 'sharp' the boundaries some of these
very large features are, if a person has a passing knowledge
of 'road cut' geology and mineralogy, they are incredibly
distinct, especially in the American Southwest. They are
also identifiable from DEM/DSM analysis, sometimes as
easily as coloring the elevation.

I somewhat agree that 'if' it was at all to go into OSM,
there would be a special interest group that would
ride herd on a specialized name space. These geologic
regions are essentially 'historical' features, some on
the order of a billion years :-)

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

[Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

[Michael Patrick]

> I'm surprised that I can't find an established tag or wiki page for a
plateau, mesa, or tableland; an area of raised land that is flat on top:
... Is natural=plateau the best option? This sounds fine to me, as an
American English speaker, but I'd like to know if it's the best British
English option.

I don't think it's a question of ' British English'. In the early days of
geology as a science, many of the founding naturalists did assign
geomorphic feature names, of course first to those dominating their region.

If your context is to have some sort of globally consistent lexicon, the
three terms are distinct from one another, with some overlap between butte
and mesa.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F3-540-31060-6_240
and https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/3-540-31060-6_289
( from 'Geomorphology', 1968 ).

The local context is different, especially for names. i.e. the 'Turtle
Mountains' in North Dakota would barely be 'knolls' elsewhere in Alaska.:
See
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/86417/kettle-lakes-of-the-turtle-mountains
:
" In most American states, the Turtle Mountains—which rise 600 to 800 feet
(180 to 240 meters) above the surrounding plain—would be called hills. But
in North Dakota, one of the flattest
<http://dx.doi.org/10./j.1931-0846.2014.12001.x> states, people have a
habit of calling even relatively modest rises mountains. (In the past, the
U.S. Board of Geographic Names argued that mountains should have at least
1,000 feet (300 meters) of local relief to earn the designation, but the
group abandoned the argument for linguistic consistency in the 1970s.)"
Sometime the local label (name ) is strongly contradictory, the exact
opposite of the local landform - especially in the American Southwest as
homesick miners had a certain dark humour when they names places.

Since the petro-geologists have, by now, did at least a first pass on most
of the Earth's surface, it is fairly easy to use Google Scholar to discover
the actual geomorphic classification terms used for classifying land forms
in a particular area. There are also geologic maps sometimes available:
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/geologic-map-of-the-mount-spokane-quadrangle-spokane-county-washington-and-kootenai-and-bonner-

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret






<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] airport check in counters

[Michael Patrick]

 > check_in=airport/camp_site/hotel/hospital/seaport/event_venue/...
> would work around this issue as well, wouldn't it?

The interface where interaction between the business and public customers
occur is generically labeled as 'customer service' points. There are some
common activities for all like taking money and others that are common to a
specific domain ( hospitality / merchandising / entertainment ) and a few
that are perhaps very specific to a particular business.

For hospitality,  hotel's customer service point(s) would handle activities
like inquiry, reservations, shuttle pickup, then luggage, registration,
room assignment, issuing keys, then transport, currency, guest services,
food, and then, payment, checkout, and shuttle again, etc. A very small
establishment would have one person doing all these, a resort might have
entire departments dedicated to each function.

The most adaptable scheme that would work across multiple domains would, at
the top level in minimal form, would be a customer service point, and at
the most detailed bottom level would be the groups of atomic activities (
accounts: refunds, payment, credit, rewards, currency exchange ).
Hospitality has five groups: reservations, reception, guest services,
accounts, and communications ( like the switchboard ). Note that going
forward, many of these service will be 'online only' - our state
campgrounds are online reservations, and AirB and their ilk subsume many
of the atomic activities. Flexibility is needed because of scale, the
atomic customer services activities may be spread across square miles at
the larger resorts, not confined to a lobby.

You can find the upper level domains at
https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_naics.htm   Leisure and Hospitality
<https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag70.htm>/Accommodation and Food Services
<https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag72.htm> (NAICS 72) / Accommodation
<https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag721.htm> (NAICS 721) has three domains
which will probably share the same general terminology around customer
service points within that category:

   - Traveler Accommodation: NAICS 7211
   - RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Recreational Camps: NAICS 7212
   - Rooming and Boarding Houses: NAICS 7213

If you look at the Occupations for these categories ( Hotel, motel, and
resort desk clerks ) which support customer service points on Onet, you
will find the 'Tasks' ( atomic activities)  they perform at those points:
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/43-4081.00
( note the " 5 of 20 displayed" and expand the list ):

   - Greet, register, and assign rooms to guests of hotels or motels.
   - Issue room keys and escort instructions to bellhops.
   - Make and confirm reservations.
   - Verify customers' credit, and establish how the customer will pay for
   the accommodation.
   - Compute bills, collect payments, and make change for guests.

Most of these can be conflated with others, or considerably shortened and
simplified. It does give you the superset of activities that occur for that
category of establishment ( domain ) for a tagging scheme, rather than
incrementally ad hoc adding new tags over the years as folks decide they
need more or less detail. Internationally, there are crosswalks between the
USA references and the coding schemes used in the rest of the world, if one
wants to localize, but the differences are mostly at the level of
distinguishing 'leaf tea' from 'bubble tea'.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret




Michael Patrick


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding

[Michael Patrick]

>  I'm planning on using the same format as the How to Map section of
waterway=dock <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddock>

There is already an existing international aerodrome mapping standard and
published schema which defines all features, their attributes, the
hierarchical relations between them, topologies ( for taxing routing ), and
their data type ( point, line, area, etc. ). This is also used in almost
all the current aviation simulation software. The Aerodrome Mapping
Database (AMDB) at
https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/aerodrome-mapping-database-amdb based
on "RTCA DO-272 User Requirements for Aerodrome Mapping Information",
explanation at "Survey and Data Standards for Submission of Aeronautical
Data Using Airports GIS" (
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5300-18C.pdf
). The standard document itself is pricey, but their are several free XML
versions with viewers out there ( http://amxm.aero/ ).

Going forward, at least in the United States, the FAA has released some and
in the future many more datasets of airports under the Airports GIS and
Electronic Airport Layout Plan (eALP)
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/airports_gis_electronic_alp/

From
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/runway_holding_position
" Testing these turn-by-turn systems, however, requires detailed airport
information, and must include runway holding position markings. In a
simulation environment, OSM would provide an excellent data source." - it
would be 'excellent' only if it conformed to the real and virtual data
models already in the world.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 24

[Michael Patrick]

> A 'top-down' process where some
> data analyst or small team prescribes the tagging would no doubt have
> resulted in a tidier and more consistent model - but it would likely
> have let to a more limited one, with less mapper engagement. Moreover,
> it would have embodied the cultural assumptions of the people who
> created it, and struggle to model features that do not exist or are
> very different in another culture.

+1

However, I would disagree that the top down approach results in
a tidier and consistent model, the opposite usually occurs, and
even messier than OSM, because resource limitations result
in everything being thrown into the pot with little attempt at
harmonization via an analysis then synthesis process ( repeating
as required ). http://factmyth.com/analysis-and-synthesis-explained/
The talk tab on a Wikipedia page is far more informative than the
actual page itself, and show how much process actually went into it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ditch

>... embodied the cultural assumptions of the people who created it

+1

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 23

[Michael Patrick]

>. Another insists that before betas can be mapped, we need a whole
taxonomy of Greek letters, 

LoL!

Actually, you would also need the Albanian variations of the Greek
alphabet to accommodate place names, just to be thorough. :-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Michael Patrick]

dicate it is a ditch for conduction of water, and
'drain_open' or some such to distinguish it from subterranean drains (
despite being buried, these are actually sometime more visible than the
ditches on aerial / sat photography ). Anything 'drain' should be confined
to where the ground interfaces with a open channel. But  a singular 'ditch'
would suffice.

Because of global variety and local conditions, there should be no 'size'
distinction, or distinction because of structural presence, materials, etc.

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

[Tagging] Classification ( and symbols ) according to context ( relative importance, size, or other 'context' )

[Michael Patrick]

 > .e all reference to number of inhabitants, &
> base the decision on each mappers own recognition of how "important"
> this is, so an isolated "village" with only a few hundred people
> in it, but which is the main centre for this area will be a town, &
> maybe even a city? ... No 'one set of rules' is going to match world
wide. 
> One guide should be that surrounding places must be relative in level of
> important to the place that is being mapped. ...Necessity makes this
> population centre very important for the few people living in that area.
... (etc.)

Fundamentally, you are attempting to make a categorization of the
rankings in the distribution of counts ( population ) of some subset
of a domain.

Economist Xavier Gabaix in 1999 wrote a much-cited paper describing
Zipf's law for cities as a power law ( see
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-mysterious-law-that-governs-the-size-of-your-city-1479244159
). It's been repeatedly tested
over decades according to what conditions it holds or does not.
Organizations
that provide wide area web cartography using a wide range of zoom levels
usually use some form of it, and it's available pretty much in every GIS
software's
symbolization set for this reason.

There are some edge cases where mega-metropolitan areas merged together,
and at the very bottom bottom literally in the weeds where one might be
counting
a few huts, but it's very robust, and more importantly there are proxy
indicators
which can stand in for the absence of direct population counts. But it's
not
really sensitive to 'accuracy' except at the very top end. So people have
used
road miles,extent area, night time lights, and other statistics for the
ranking.

( See
https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/11/13/zipfs-law-for-cities-a-simple-explanation-for-urban-populations/
): " Zipf’s Law does not just hold true for cities
in the United States, but rather it has been correlated with urban
population
totals in nearly every developed country across the world. Additionally,
works well when “Metropolitan Areas” are used – cities defined by the
distribution and connectivity of populations rather than arbitrary
political
boundaries."

In case of OSM, if the original count rankings were created by country (
rather
than globally ) then categorized ( seen always seems to be the magic number
),
it works fairly well, without any reliance on arbitrary population count
boundaries
and nomenclature ( village, city, etc. ) based on a single European country
and
language.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

[Michael Patrick]

> What started the whole thing off was me wanting to map one of these

Directly from the signs out front, and some assumptions:

- Caravan retailing
<https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Business-industry-code-tool/AnzsicCoder.aspx?s=caravan=39130>
- Used caravan retailing
<https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Business-industry-code-tool/AnzsicCoder.aspx?s=caravan=39130>
- Caravan towing service
<https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Business-industry-code-tool/AnzsicCoder.aspx?s=caravan=46100>
- Caravan rental
<https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Business-industry-code-tool/AnzsicCoder.aspx?s=caravan=66190>
- Leasing, hiring or renting of caravans from own stocks
<https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Business-industry-code-tool/AnzsicCoder.aspx?s=caravan=66190>
- Caravan repair or fitting out
<https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Business-industry-code-tool/AnzsicCoder.aspx?s=caravan=94129>

Courtesy of the Australian Taxation Office:
https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Business-industry-code-tool/AnzsicCoder.aspx?s=caravan

What's a 'Horse Float' under RVs? https://i.gifer.com/SC79.gif
Seriously, this term is a great example of a regional difference. In the
U.S., it's equine dental / foot care.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret

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

[Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

[Michael Patrick]

 > Therefore nothing suggested so far is going to work.

It might be a radical idea, but there is usually an industry association
for any domain, at the international, regional, and country level and they
frequently publish marketing and production and sales statistics which use
sectors and terminology aligned aligned with their consumers and suppliers.

See
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-recreational-vehicles-industry-300508184.html
- "... Classification of Recreational Vehicles differs across major
geographical markets, in accordance with consumer lifestyles and
requirements. The US and Canadian markets are analyzed by the following
Segments: Motor Homes (Class A, Class B, and Class C), Travel Trailers
(Conventional Travel Trailer, and Fifth Wheel Travel Trailer), and Campers
& Camping Trailers (Folding Camping Trailer, and Truck Camper). The
Japanese market is analyzed by the following Segments: Trailers, and
Others, while the European market is analyzed by the following Segments:
Motor Caravans, and Touring Caravans. The Asia-Pacific market is analyzed
by the following Segments: Caravans, and Camper Vans. The report provides
separate comprehensive analytics for the US, Canada, Japan, Europe,
Asia-Pacific, and Rest of World."

Also RV Industry Association https://www.rvia.org/who-we-serve ,
https://www.rvia.org/news-insights/rv-shipments-november-2018 ,
https://www.civd.de/en/association.html
https://www.civd.de/en/association.html ,  The European Caravan Federation
(ECF)   http://www.e-c-f.com/index.php?id=3 , KCI (Dutch Association for
Camping and Caravan Industry)

If it has a large footprint in the world, it is probably regulated and / or
monitored by some international organization and various country's
governmental agencies. "415 drain
see also ditch... Conduit or small open channel by which water is removed
from a soil or an aquifer, by gravity, in order to control the water level
or to remove excess water." in the International Glossary of Hydrology from
the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/publications/international_glossary/385_IGH_2012.pdf
). Frequently they will have crosswalks or otherwise note the differences
and similarities between different regions and countries.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

[Michael Patrick]

 > You can put your microtome away.  Anyway, it's not meant for splitting
hairs. :p... RV may not be only American, but it's still not UK English.

The U.K. has about 1 million 'leisure' caravans. Europe as a whole,
about  5,230,000.

My microtome shows the U.S. accounts for 60% of global RV sales, growing at
8% annually, and "In 2017, the US accounted for 91.07% globally" for
related goods and services, with some *9 million RVs* licensed in use. A
million permanently live in their RVs ( h
ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/12/million-americans-live-rvs-meet-modern-nomads/
). About 40% of those a are senior citizen 'snow birds' who are essentially
migratory between their children's home cities and site in the American
South and Southwest. Anecdotally, I know large numbers of homeless people
are living in unregistered, immobile, or otherwise invisible statistically
RVs (
https://komonews.com/news/local/rv-campers-filling-everett-streets-but-where-are-they-supposed-to-go
).

It is also enshrined in U.S. Department of Transportation lexicon of
regulations, including signage, ditto with every state and local
municipalitie's transportation departments. All commercial signage is 'RV'
for goods and services, including sales of vehicles. It is embedded in
economic statistical data "RV Park  NAICS Code: 721211   SIC Code: 7033".
National, State, and local business directories like the ubiquitous Yellow
Pages have an RV category.  The U.S. Census  American Community Survey has
RV housing statistics.

My guess is that Canada is somewhat similar.

Lemme think ... over the past 50 years living and traveling across the
United States, I have seen the word 'caravan' ... maybe a few times, in
reference to the very few Rom who still migrate from city to city. Never on
a sign. Except maybe for the 'Dodge Caravan' model minivan ( which isn't
even suitable as a camper : -)

All else being equal,and in the absence of other sources, the British
vernacular tradition, might hold, but the in this case the overwhelming use
of the term in official, commerce, and common use would indicate it should
be included in parallel, but certainly not at the expense of 'caravan'.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Michael Patrick]

> On 1/11/19 2:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes
> > locations where a trail just crosses a road.
>

There are many trail heads to systems which are reached by boat,
See http://www.bostonharborislands.org/hike-the-harbor. In remote areas
of Alaska, Maine, etc., you can reach some by only rail, by requesting a
'flag stop'. I recall some Scandinavian country had a shuttle flights to
remote areas to pickup and drop off cross country skiers from central
points. There are trails along abandoned railroad right of ways which
cross roads using the trestles, without any direct access to the roads,
similarly, some follow streams which pass hundreds of feet under
the highway bridges above. At least in the U.S.A. the most that can be
said of a trailhead is that it has some form of transportation access and
link to the trail system, not even that they are the start of finish.I've
been
to some that had no more than tree blazes marking them or a highway
mile marker referencing them.

I know it's a wild thought, but why don't you look at the data models
that already exist, like the British Ordnance Survey, the U.S. FGDC,
or the E.U. Inspire standard.

For the term 'trailhead', it is kept as very simple concept, "where a
pedestrian network affords a transition to other transport networks".
Everything else that might be in proximity to the trailhead, the parking,
visitor centers, kiosks, etc. are bundled together, and, handled as if
there was no 'trailhead' there at all.

>  then invent a tag for TOP and use it,

+1, I'll help. I suspect it  already exists, or is underdevelopment,  since
the Netherlands is at the forefront of Inspire adoption.

A trailhead is a singular thing, that point at the interface between
networks,
it isn't collection of things. Those other things might be in proximity or
coincident with the trailhead, but they don't contribute to the definition
of trail head. For that matter, it really might not be considered even a
thin itself, because it really is a only 'reference' to other non-trail
networks.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[Michael Patrick]

 > Seriously though (& not arguing :-)), "a semi-trailer truck poking out
of a
> roof. Pavement staining and tire marks from fork lifts" wouldn't really be
> enough to say definitely whether you're looking at a roof over an open
area
> or an enclosed building, would it? That truck could be poked out of the
> doors of an enclosed loading dock, & the forklift could be doing the
same?

Usually, no single thing will lead to a conclusion. The identification
'keys'
basically indicate the other things depending on the context one should
look for. Hey, it could be a short truck, too :-) Preponderance of evidence.
Which is why it's useful to use multiple imagery sources.

Bing and Google Maps are aggregators of imagery - they license it from
other companies, at some price, at various resolutions, and what shows
can change over time - urban areas get updated very frequently, not so
much when you get out into the sticks. Even this isn't an absolute, by some
freak of availability we observed a bear on the road of my brother's
property on the Front Range in Montana. Also, the orthorectification
can sometimes be crap ( adjusting for terrain, etc. )

> Yes, if you've got slanting or night time imagery that may help, but I've
> never seen it in the areas I map in :-(>

You can add your own sources to JOSM, the presets are the more or
less globally useful services. Sometimes, you don't need to actually
add it to JOSM to assist, like the building overhang issue. Our
county has phenomenal lidar point data available ( 6"), I can make out
the location of the picket fence on my front lawn. Our state flies
regular oblique photography to monitor coastal conditions, also.
There is an upfront effort of finding what's available, but once you
have the endpoints and sources for your area of interest, it can
make things easier.

For instance:
JOSM displaying the USGS 3DEP ( derived from Lidar surveys )
http://bit.ly/2Rjb8LO
- in some areas it has 1 meter resolution along with slope aspect, etc.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-elevation-map-service-available-usgs-3d-elevation-program
and for thermal ASTER ( Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer)
https://bit.ly/2FoslNE - not great, it's a fairly old platform and varies
between 15 to 90 square
meters per pixel, but I had it handy.

> On the subject of clarity of images. Was mapping the other day (using iD),
> marking buildings in an industrial area. As I said, the photo's weren't
the
> clearest, but I was also peering through the purple haze of the mapped
> area=industrial, which certainly doesn't help matters either :-(

Yeah, we have 308 cloudy days a year. Which underscores the value of
having sources that have multiple times available. Leaf on and leaf off
is also useful. If Bing's blender picked a day when an inversion layer
was occurring, it's nice to pick another day. Night imagery is rare.

The gold standard for this is SAR ( synthetic aperture radar )
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/t/tsx-ng
but  it isn't really mainstream yet, may never be for the general
public for obvious military reasons. Many countries are launching these
platforms, though, so it may be like the 'fuzz' on GPS accuracy,
once everybody has it, they'll open it up.

Depending on your level of commitment, it's useful to have some
minimal skill with QGIS, just for these discernment purposes. Then
you can do things like pansharpening  (
https://www.geoimage.com.au/images/services/pan_sharp_bne_qb.jpg ),
contrast adjustment, etc. very simply just
by altering the layer transparency - tasks that aren't possible in JOSM.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Quick Building tracing question..

[Michael Patrick]

 > I've just traced what I can see as the visible roof area &  called it
> "building", as it's impossible to tell from an overhead image what is
> enclosed building & what is only a roof over an open area?
> If you had street-level imagery that may change things?

> As Graeme says - you cannot tell from satellite imagery.

Actually, you can, especially if you have imagery from multiple platforms
at different times of year, or better yet, different times of day.

Shadows are usually the primary clue. Partial obstruction of other objects
in the scene is another - like a semi-trailer truck poking out of a roof.
Pavement staining and tire marks from fork lifts. slopes of piles of
material along walls. Footpaths in snow., or if snow accumulates on the
roof. Stacked containers. If you have evening or night imagery, the light
silhouettes cast through windows to the outside. The presence of HVAC
equipment and ducting on the roof, and roof materials in general.
Obscuration or disturbance / distortion of vapor plumes from vehicle
exhaust or furnaces.

All this falls under 'aerial photointerpretation'. The ones I mentioned
above were from a WW II military training manual, some of the 'key' guides
now are thousands of pages long.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret







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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

[Michael Patrick]

> Is there an upper cut-off where things stop being a peninsula?

Hmmm ... not really. And it doesn't have to be the same body of water
either - the Upper and Lower Peninsula of Michigan State are isolated by
the collective waters of the Great Lakes. The Iberian Peninsula in Europe,
the Korean Peninsula, Florida, are also quite large. Not to get to fractal,
but peninsula can have peninsula. The 'base' which connects also is quite
varied, sometimes a river, a piedmont, or the ridge line of a major
drainage.

Local here, we have Camano Island, which is really a peninsula. IMHO,
anyways

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

Re: [Tagging] how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

[Michael Patrick]

> A few years ago, there was an effort (promoted by World Bank, it seems) to
>  map buildings in OSM for Katmandu where they used key
buidling:soft_storey=yes/no.
> They never proposed a formal tag. The results of that effort is a bit
confusing and I'm not sure it's the best approach.

Because their may not have been very many of these left after multiple
earthquakes?
Wikipedia isn't probably the most authoritative source on this subject.

First, it might be noticed that the term, even in OSM, is not used in
isolation, it is part
of an extensive internally consistent system of terms from a survey of a
particular part
of the world. i.e it only helps designates the probability of hazard when
all the other
factors in that tagging / survey scheme are also noted.

'Soft_storey' is part of a rapid VSM ( Rapid Visual Screening) process
( see Table 3 at https://bit.ly/2S60CE6 for a global list of these, The
U.S.A. FEMA https://bit.ly/2QKVhp5 )
In the western United States, designating a building as a 'soft_story'
visually with the intended meaning that it was at seismic risk, you
would be off base. Many seismic retrofits, especially in historic
buildings are invisible. And many with visible mitigation have
other characteristics in the coding scheme which make them
seriously at risk. The FEMA RVS is 388 pages because the
assessment is not trivial. Seismic vulnerability is the sum total
of many aspects.

> how to map soft story/soft storey buildings properly?

Use on of the recognized seismic VSMs that apply to the location.
GEM ( https://www.globalquakemodel.org ) is global, and has rapid
VSM survey sheets for various countries
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/1dcea4_e0c3391c6d32439188f8969ed902f0d6.pdf

>  Question for the community: does it make sense to add soft story
> information using the key building:soft_storey=y/n (similar to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:fireproof) or should I
use
> building:structure=soft_storey?

If you intend to give meaningful accurate seismic information, it
should be the lowest level concept and only be present if the other
characteristics are included, ideally, from a survey.

> Good question. For disaster preparedness and response, it is valuable to
> have a list of soft story buildings in a neighborhood. There are multiple
> places where such buildings are mapped like 

They examples you gave make an interesting point. Who
maintains this in OSM, i.e. if a retrofit is accomplished, do you
still designate it as soft story? What about addresses which
are demo'd and new construction? Also, for various reasons,
many, many retrofits are not done under a permit, or not
specifically identified as a seismic retrofit. One of those, the city
program site, has mostly 'exempt' or 'done' entries, and those
appear on the map anyways. Same with the City of SF site,
and a quick Streetview of the few non-compliant ones show
no residential occupancy, just the ground floor retail is
open.

For disaster preparedness and response, accurate
information is important, in these cases, 'the map'
practically useless.

However, what I think what you want to do is still
possible and could be really, really useful, if it
followed a format ( like one of the VSMs) that
provided the complete set of characteristics.And
those tags should be prefaced with something like
'GEM_soft_story' that makes it clear they are part
of a set, not an end conclusion about the building's
risk. And you would have to timestamp it some way
to refresh it.

Michael Patrick

( another kind of soft story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisco)#Sinking_and_tilting_problem
)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Building names, historical/original owner?

[Michael Patrick]

> I have a question about `name=` and variants of names. I've been reading
a lot of local history and in the architecture/history world, houses are
generally named for the first resident that they were built for.
E.g."Johnson house" and are referred to in this way even after many
generations of new owners. ... For some of these buildings they are
commonly referred to by the public using this historical-owner name. For
example the "Osborne house" ...  in my town was referred to as such in
public meetings and newspapers several years ago .. ... Especially in the
case of a building taken up by a single business, locals will simply refer
to the building as the ... or some other tag?

For at least part of this use case, these are known as 'landmark' buildings
( and other things, like the 'Blue Star Highway
' or 'Lincoln
Highway "), and they have
that designation whether they've been moved, etc. The name reflects the
original builder, owner, company, congregation, ranch, farm, etc. The
landmark status can official
 ( local, state,
federal ) or not ( usually the case in rural areas ).

There seems to already be some tags along these lines in taginfo,
landmark_building, and landmark with a key value of building.
,
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 111, Issue 60

[Michael Patrick]

> ... beside, are you sure those hooks are for hammocks? How can you hang 3
> hammocks radially from the center point? There doesn't seems to be enough
> "angle" between them... Have you ever seen an actual hammock hanging from
> there? Presence of the ropes makes me think they are thought for something
> else...
>

Oh, he is correct, it's even labeled as such. The 'ropes' are drawn in for
illustration.

And I retract my suggestion, to hell with English, this is a case where the
non-English term is *vastly* superior, more specific and expressive
<http://kalma.com.br/kalmablog/index.php/rede-de-dormir-tutorial-como-construir-um-redario/>.
And it is a beautiful sound.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=hammock_hook (Sérgio V.)

[Michael Patrick]

>
> Hi, I've found a playground equipment that is made to hang hammocks.
> It's a kind of industrialized urban furniture specially made for it.
> This one consists of a central fixed pole and hook that can hang a limited
> number of hammocks in a radial disposition, each one with its other pole
> and hook (but it might exist other dispositions)
> We have no tag for "places for hammocks" until now.
>
> I was thinking if it could be tagged as:
> leisure=hammock_hook
> since what effectively assures its proper function is that it has hooks to
> hang hammocks.
> What do you think? Thank you in advance.
>

At least in the USA, the term "hammock hangout" (lowercase) appears in the
Hammockish sub-culture vernacular to be a place or event where single, but
far more prevalent, multiple hammocks can be installed on an ad hoc or
permanent basis.

The suspension technique isn't limited to just hooks, there are loops,
eyes, etc. - and the vertical supports are anything from natural trees to
building walls. The park equipment manufacturers use the rather bland
'stand' and the less common 'station'.

My preference would be the hammock_hangout, if you were to use some variant
of leisure=hammock_hook, it maybe should be hammock_hooks (plural), because
just a single hook available entails a less than optimum hammock
experience.

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

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

[Michael Patrick]

 Note
> that in some languages the place of category name relative to the proper
> name matters.
>
>  Because of the complexities noted previously, the weight of legacy
information, and maintenance complexity ( occasional refactoring ), a more
or less parallel scheme would be unrealistic inside of OSM. Possibly one
of the OSM semantic projects
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Semantics> might provide
similar capability. Implementing as you describe would be the Mother of All
Automated Edits.

> * Thirdly, in order to make the life of renderers simple, introduce one
> more tag for holding the name which can be displayed on maps as is without
> any modifications, e.g. "display_name". This tag may contain whatever
> content is considered locally appropriate specifically for rendering on
> maps.
>
> I'm not sure I understand this, but superficially it seems to break the
convention of separation of data and symbolization (heavily dependent on
the specifics at the endpoint).

There are people in the community that are *far* more knowledgeable than me
on these themes, I suggest you reach out to them.

For me, a  mental model of monolithic OSM isn't useful. It isn't unique to
OSM, even what appear to be simple concepts like Employee Name in an
enterprise database become very complex when applied to different cultures
- I one reconciled a record for a nurse who had 13+ different versions, all
perfectly 'legal' in the corporate records.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shared waterway highway

[Michael Patrick]

Similar to 'ice roads' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_road> in Canada
and Siberia. Minnesota <https://www.backcountryhunters.org/mt_stream_access>.
In Oregon wet-sand portion of the state’s beaches have been set aside as a
state highway <https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/oregon_beach_bill/>.
Not roads,but a trails, In Montana, with some access restrictions, one can
traverse any property below the high watermark
<https://www.backcountryhunters.org/mt_stream_access>.

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

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

[Michael Patrick]

> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> thank you for the references to the specific standards. I’m going to look
> more into it. Problem is if these are hundreds of pages most people will
> not look the tags up ;-)
>

You're welcome, and I totally agree with your observation, especially
considering the international basis of OSM. And thanks for even taking a
passing interest in the topic. It is a "red-headed stepchild
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/red-headed_stepchild>" sort of issue, and
because it cuts across just about every community and portion of the OSM
technology stack, and any effort to apply the known solutions would
automatically generate a lot of animosity immediately, even if long-term it
made life easier and more inclusive of local variation -  that is what
happens outside of OSM, it's not specific to OSM.

I wouldn't expect individuals to look through hundreds of pages, any
eventual solution would require a technology stack to assist the user, like
a child using a botany key to find a species name in Latin in a couple of
steps. And I respectfully submit that situation already exists, like with
the user-defined 'amenity' tag (  9261items, 441 'pages'
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity#values>). Addressing the
situation rubs up against too many OSM culture themes, similar to large
scale import or automatic edits. It is most likely easier to address
outside of OSM, along with some sort of ODBL 'firewall' insulation ( like
the NPS <http://www.mtaylorlong.com/work/park-tiles> ). The NGA most likely
does this sort of thing
<https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150622005999/en/NGA-DigitalGlobe-Open-Source-Toolkit-Harness-Power>,
with tools like Hootenanny <https://github.com/ngageoint/hootenanny>


> Do they not have grade eight roofers in the US?
>

True, to great extent, but the absence of an 8 in this case is not because
of that. Actually there is a skills shortage crisis for all the trades in
the U.S. ... the bulk of tradesmen in the country are retiring or near
retirement in the next decade.

Somewhat off-topic for OSM, but it is a sort of 'tagging' schema.

The example text was pulled from the somewhat arcane U.S. Federal Wage
Scales, where specific pay grades are then extracted to fit local
conditions, especially trade union classifications - i.e. another area or
skill might use 2,3,5,8,9.

Depending on the trade an apprenticeship program will range widely from 1
year to 6 years. Depending on the industry, the journeymen phase, it
becomes even wider, for example the nuclear industry trades include "Basic
Atomic & Nuclear Physics", "Heat Transfer & Fluid Flow"- in the U.K., I
recall, you get a BEng in Nuclear Engineering out of some of the trade
apprenticeships.  The Federal Grades are linear, and particular grades are
selected that match specialization and trade for a given area, and that
isn't always numerically 'linear'.

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

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

[Michael Patrick]

> great you name carpenters, because there were actually some problems in the
> past classifying people working with wood. ... Can you explain the
> difference between a framer, a carpenter, a cabinet maker, a joiner, a
> finish carpenter, a timberman, a ring builder, a jerry man, a binder?
>

There could only be a problem classifying trades if existing lexicons are
ignored. At least in the U.S., currently, there are fairly exact
definitions for trade classifications, down to the types of tools, specific
materials, certification, and processes where required.

Example: *"Grade 9 roofers must be fully skilled in installing new roofs.
They must have the ability to apply the starter row of shingles to insure
that they overlap properly and that they are securely fastened to the
subsurface to eliminate possibility of leaks. On built-up roofs, they must
be skilled in applying roofing felt, asphalt and gravel, or other topping
material, and in sealing joints of roofing accessories with asphalt. In
addition to work at the grade 7 level, the grade 9 roofers must be able to
install and repair the metal roofing accessories themselves, such as gravel
guards, flashings, gutters, valleys, vents, pipes, and chimneys.They also
must have the ability to cut and form metal accessories to meet roofing
requirements, to fasten them to roofs with nails or screws, to solder metal
joints, and to cut and shape shingles to fit around the accessories. In
comparison with the grade 7 level, the grade 9 roofers also must be
familiar with a greater variety of roofing materials and their uses and
methods of installation. They must know how to apply wood, asbestos, slate
tile, and composition shingles; metal roofing panels; roofing felt and
asphalt. When required, they must be able to apply asbestos siding
materials.In addition to the hand tools used at the grade 7 level, they
must be skilled in the use of shingle cutters, metal snips and saws. "*

International Open BIM systems standards ( Building Information Management,
which covers the entire life cycle from natural site, through construction
and operation, to demolition and site restoration ) have even finer grain
of detail.

Some of them might be synonyms, some reflect regional differences (e.g. AE
> vs. BE)?
>

Since the labor and materials supply chain is international, there are
multi-lingual crosswalk tables between the U.S. and E.U., between the E.U.
and the member countries.

A casual observer might observe a job site during a pour, and classify the
workers as 'concrete workers', when they are actually Formwork *Carpenters.*

Folksonomies <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy> like OSM have
benefits, but as they expand, the downsides begin to matter, and there
usually isn't an effective mechanism to refactor them.

Sometimes the apparent complexity of these existing standards appear
intimidating, but they all have a root, branches, and leaves, and one can
select the level(s) of abstraction which are coincident with common
language. i.e. in one place you can see what the differences *and
similarities* "... between a framer, a carpenter, a cabinet maker, a
joiner, a finish carpenter, a timberman, a ring builder, a jerry man, a
binder" are, and where your term lies in the hierarchy. Sometimes, the
'root' concept and groupings are not obvious.

This also leaves room for reconciling it with other classifications -
Japanese style carpentry roles are more or less orthogonal to Western
style, more intensely aligned to product, the worker literally might select
and fell the tree, mill that wood, and eventually carve it to shape in it's
final position.

It's a question, to a degree, of "re-inventing the wheel". There are
already existing tagging schemes in the world ( some going back to the
1700's, from guilds and registries ). It might be worth a few minutes to
seek those out, and adopt from those.

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

[Tagging] How to map a sliding section of the Alaska Pipeline

[Michael Patrick]

> ... There is a short section of the Trans-Alaska pipeline that crosses a
well-known fault line where it is attached to slides to allow lateral
movement in case of an earthquake. I split the pipeline way and added a
note to the section but that probably isn't visible to most data consumers.
Any ideas?

OMG, Thank You Dave!

I love ontological edge cases -  and this is certainly good one. :-)

I'd add something like "Deliberate Operator Movement" or "Directed
Movement" or some such to my description. These sort of joints are quite
common once one is cued to notice them.

A friend of mine pointed on that a clear distinction was the pure
unidirectional ( along one path ) of rail-lines, whether it's road trains,
maglevs, or rail roads. There's no up/down or side ways component except
through a split, curve, or join in the track, where in the case of a
movable gantry there is usually a lifting, rotating, or conveying occurring
in addition to along the track axis. And as an additional note, regardless
of the type of point of contact ( rail, tire, magnetic ) the term for what
directs the travel is a 'track' ( unfortunately already occupied by the
road term ).

> If it is moveable it is a gantry crane.  A gantry per se can be immobile,
right?

The immobile case ( like the fixed support for signs ) isn't that common,
as far as I could tell - in the sign case, the immobile case was more
commonly more simply called a 'bridge', probably because the spanning part
on even movable gantries and cranes is called a bridge.

> Maybe not a rail line in the conventional sense, but I tagged an
(unfortunately disused) children's train in Ashgabat
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429019713 as a railway even though it
goes around and around, or used to, and has no destination.

Another excellent case. Although it might be said t the origin and
destination merely have the same location, and differ along time and
direction path, , and as I noted, it's primary feature is as a conveyance,
not 'positioning' something for an action. Here the 'rails are rails' in
two uses (
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0001-dh-thornaby-roundhouse.jpg
), but only one is the 'conventional sense' of a rail line - the other rail
is for positioning.

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

[Tagging] Tracks for moveable large objects

[Michael Patrick]

>
> Some radio telescopes are located on what could be called rail lines. ...
> though these lines have to carry more localised weight and have a much
> larger track width. For a photo see
> http://www.atnf.csiro.au/resources/imagebank/images/ATCA_in_a_line.jpg
>
> Ideas for suitable tags for these 'rail lines'?
>

'Rails' certainly, but not 'rail lines' in the conventional sense., in that
a rail line implies an origin and destination ( in the 'railroad' sense ),
in this case all are parts of a single device, albeit a very large one.

A movable support structure primarily constrained in the horizontal plane
is known as a *gantry* (system). The constrained path might be pavement,
rails, sprockets and the movement contact point might be wheels, slides,
skates, airbags, tracks, pivot, or some such. The path might be straight as
for cranes or circular in the case of irrigation systems, and other
geometries that might include switches. They range in size from tabletops
<http://go.aerotech.com/gantry?creative=313509089976> to almost a kilometer
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco_Zimmerling/publication/316674860/figure/fig3/AS:490393876865026@1493930419717/The-open-pit-mine-where-the-wireless-network-was-installed.png>
in some mining and agriculture operations
<https://centrelineirrigation.com.au/image/data/centereline-irrigation-service.jpg>.
Their purpose and action differ from railway / rail line (etc.)  - i.e.
primarily positioning
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gantry#Devices_and_structures> vs.
transport.

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

[Tagging] (Tramtrack_on_highway)

[Michael Patrick]

Not at all unusual related to streets in urban areas, perhaps less so for
arterials, although the Seattle Streetcar certainly is on some of the most
heavily trafficked streets:
Seattle Streetcar:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6261598,-122.3340738,3a,75y,25.69h,89.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD9tuOXn1XAptqbAhpAxIGQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DD9tuOXn1XAptqbAhpAxIGQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D65.5826%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Spur line into Boeing's 737 plant, lately at least about 5 trains a day
carrying 737 fuselage sections from Wichita:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4784892,-122.2069092,3a,75y,83.26h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJAY-l6m18kq0s2Yvf0kcwQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJAY-l6m18kq0s2Yvf0kcwQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.08282%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Also not unusual in intensive industrial park areas.

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[Michael Patrick]

 Globally, US DOT, the World Bank, ASFAIK all EU countries, have settled on
GTFS, or eventually will on some future version.

So there are two cases:
1. Transit Services that use GTFS
2. Transit Services that do not use GTFS

For Case 1, the General Transit Feed Specification Reference declares that
the geographical elements ( which correspond to OSM geometry types ) are to
be declared and maintained on the GTFS side, and since OSM doesn't have any
sort of permanent / persistent element ID to bind that fact, the robust
technical solution especially for complex transit system would be a
automated CRUD
 refresh of
the geometry. You're still at the mercy of OSM side latency to some extent,
but doable.

OSM would be useful in Case 2, to initially provide the geometries to a
GTFS feed not maintained by an agency - it is simply a set of .txt files,
this has been done for small local routes on GitHub. Then the technical
solution above applies. Ongoing, maintain your GTFS feed to whatever level
you feel suffices. And you could publish your feed to the registry, to
everyone's benefit.

( ... this is overly simplistic, and invokes the ball of snakes of opinions
and philosophies on automated imports, so your pretty much back to some
sort of parallel OSM implementation with the main OSM as essentially a
background layer. ).

BTW, Google Transit ( or any of the others ) do not store the data, they
rely of the GTFS feed.

Michael




Virus-free.
www.avast.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Michael Patrick]

> If it’s 40 storeys of apartments above a 3 storey mall, use landuse=retail
for the whole mall area, and building=apartment for the residential towers.
The whole, larger mall building could probably be building=mall; it sounds
like there are several tall but narrow residential towers around or on top
of a bigger mall.

You're describing ( in the USA anyways) Mixed Use classification.
>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development
*Mixed-use development is a type of urban development that blends
residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, or entertainment uses,
where those functions are physically and functionally integrated, and that
provides pedestrian connections. Mixed-use development can take the form of
a single building, a city block, or entire neighbourhoods. The term may
also be used more specifically to refer to a mixed-use real estate
development project—a building, complex of buildings, or district of a town
or city that is developed for mixed-use by a private developer, (quasi-)
governmental agency, or a combination thereof. *

In the USA, under the impetus of Growth Management legislation in most
states and metropolitan areas, the concept isn't only restricted to urban
areas.

> Commercial areas are less important but are still more likely to be
destinations of trips, compared to residential and industrial.

There is lots of trip data, but most trips are multiple pairs and or
multi-modal.
> I initially disliked the idea of only tagging retail landuse for mixed-use
> urban centers, but it makes sense based on the need to tag one feature on
> one area, and the limited options for rendering maps with overlapping
> landuse.

Back in 1994, after examining existing schemes, the APA came up with the
LBCS <https://www.planning.org/lbcs/standards/> as a minimal schema to make
sense of the semantics of LULC. The EU also has a similar LULC
harmonization under the INSPIRE framework
<https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/Themes/129/2892>.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 108, Issue 162

[Michael Patrick]

> It would seem odd to tag a bend as a reach, as the classic definition of
a reach is 'A portion of a river, channel, or lake which lies between two
bends or which can be seen in one view'.

Which is why the first sentence the USGS definition is: “Reach” can
have *slightly
different meanings*, depending on how it is used.

Since USGS is the custodian of the Geographic Names Information System
<https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/> (GNIS) and also the hydrology models,
they probably have a better overview of where and how it's applied ranging
from common / historical names to strict scientific terminology.

One that came to my mind which has no straightness component at all was the
Hanford Reach on the Columbia River: *" The Hanford Reach
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Reach> is a free-flowing section of
the Columbia River, around 51 miles (82 km) long, in eastern Washington
state. It is named after a large northward bend in the river's otherwise
southbound course."*

I.e. that single bend is the 'reach' :-) The Mississippi River Reaches
<https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/rivers/upper_mississippi/select_a_reach.html>
are hundreds of miles long and include many straight log sections, bends
etc.

I also have an U.S. Navy COLREGS book "Collision Prevention" on my table
here where their use is exactly according to the definition you mention
based on 'visibility'. And close to other nautical meanings like a sailing
'reach', being the longest clear path achievable without obstruction under
given conditions.

One source gives the 1520s as the earliest use, referring to stretches of
water.There weren't to many straight stretches of water back then, even the
canals in Venice and Amsterdam were pretty organic. :-)

It seams it can be applied in any ad hoc way to any water between two
locations, even nested and overlapping manners, at any scale. Precise
ambiguity, good for OSM. :-)

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

[Tagging] Tagging a named river bend

[Michael Patrick]

> It does not communicate the quality of "riverness" at all. This bend may
or may not lend its name to a locality but it is primarily a feature of the
river, not
the name of a settled place.

Generally, the term 'Reach' is most appropriate for subsections of flowing
water:
(From https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-a-reach )
What is a reach?

“Reach” can have *slightly different meanings*, depending on how it is used.

A reach is a section of a stream or river along which similar hydrologic
conditions exist, such as discharge, depth, area, and slope. It can also be
the length of a stream or river (with varying conditions) between two
stream gauges, or a length of river for which the characteristics are well
described by readings at a single stream gauge.

More generally, *a reach is just any length of a stream or river.* The term
is often used by hydrologists when they’re referring to a small section of
a river rather than its entire length from end to end.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Michael Patrick]

FYI, the U.S. NGA ( National Geospatial Agency ) provides the NGA GEOnet
Names Server (GNS) <http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html> with both
a viewer and text lookup <http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html> .
Also available are various web services
<http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/gns_services.html> ( like WMS ), APIs,
downloads and via shapefiles for GIS software like Qgis. YMMV, i.e. in
Belgium there is very explicit name variants
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2dVprMUpCR0lCdjlxbm9aSUliOHVzTUVPSEVR/view?usp=sharing>
with associated languages and encodings, in areas of Australia
<http://llmap.org/map/321252/> the aboriginal names are variants, but the
actual language isn't explicitly named. If you do a search on the  Nicholas
Range ( Badakhshān, Afghanistan ) for example:
( what follows will probably explode in email depending on your client -
alternate
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2NFdHdTUxR0dGZmhmOTJsUkJPbmpaRWR5SEd3/view?usp=sharing>
)

Silsilah-ye Kōh-e Wākhān   (Approved - N)
Silsilah   (Generic)
--
سلسله کوه واخان   (Non-Roman Script - NS)
سلسله   (Generic)
--
Nicholas Range   (Variant - V)
--
Qatorkŭhi Vakhon   (Variant - V)
--
Selselah Kōh-e Wākhān   (Variant - V)
--
Selseleh-ye Kūh-e Vākhān   (Variant - V)
Selseleh-ye Kūh   (Generic)
--
Khrebet Vakhanski   (Variant - V)
--
Vakhanskiy Khrebet   (Variant - V)
--
Qatorkŭhi Vakhon   (Variant - V)
--
Vakhsh Mountains   (Variant - V)
--
Wa-han P’a-mi-erh   (Variant - V)
--
Selsela-Koh-i-Wākhān   (Variant - V)

About what you expect - Russian, English, Arabic, Chinese, Arabic, etc.

A lookup of Yopurga , Xinjiang, China ( a seat of a third-order
administrative division), you will find many Uighur ( aboriginal) variants
expressed in both Cyrillic ( Ёпурға ) and Arabic ( يوپۇرغا) - this includes
historical entries. The dates can be helpful in determining the relevance -
in some areas of the world the only map name may have come of a British
Ordnance Survey in the 1800's.

Rumor has it the very best current language data is a proprietary database
owned by a evangelical christian organization that is verified by a network
of missionaries working in those areas. Almost all the language data has
some sort of license or copyright attached to it - the NGA data is the
standard US Federal "do whatever you want' with it, and the folks I've met
from NGA are very supportive of the OSM project.

Hope some of this helps form your proposal.

Michael Patrick,
OSM Seattle
Data Ferret






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

[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - RFC - Line clamps

[Michael Patrick]

> Do you agree to currently tag this as tower:type=suspension and maybe
later according to proposal as line_clamp=suspension? Is there an opposite
of suspension in English?I only find "suspension" in IEC vocabulary

After perusing Electropedia (IEC), I noticed some of the clamp entries
referred to 'posts', so I looked at power line equipment catalogs under
insulators, and alongside Suspension Insulators, Spool Insulators, Pin Type
Insulators, there is also a Post Insulators, and some engineering
references.

>From "The transmission and distribution of electrical energy
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.65422>" 3rd ed.  Cotton and
Barber, page 165: There are three types used in connection with overhead
lines, viz. :


   1. Pin-type.
   2. Suspension-type.
   3. Strain-type.( includes 'Shackle'?)

It seems the various 'clamps' are used in conjunction with the position /
orientation dictated by the major type insulator ( top, middle, spool(with
clevis)). Post Insulators seem to incorporate both support, stand-off, and
insulating functions in all orientations ( pointing up, down or slantwise
).

Probably the simplest antonym for 'suspension' conductor on bottom ) case
is 'pin' ( conductor on top ), and if you want 'spool' for the minority
conductor in the middle.

Michael Patrick



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

Re: [Tagging] Lake or Pond

[Michael Patrick]

Form a hyrdomorphology / geomorphology technical perspective, the following
key fairly succinctly characterizes the differences.( from
http://www.lakescientist.com/lake-facts/how-lakes-differ/ ):
*Lakes vs. Ponds*

Both lakes and ponds are standing or slow-moving bodies of water. There are
no official or scientific differences between lakes and ponds. Lakes are
larger than ponds, but size is relative. What would be considered a pond in
one region might be considered a lake in another. In general, water bodies
that are considered lakes in dry areas would only be considered ponds in
regions with abundant water resources where there are more (and larger)
bodies of water. Despite the lack of official characteristics, there are
several questions that are used to generally distinguish ponds from lakes:

   - Does light reach the bottom of the deepest point of the water body?
   - Does the water body only get small waves (i.e., smaller than 1ft/30cm
   in height)?
   - Is the water body relatively uniform in temperature?

If these questions can be answered with a “yes,” the water body is likely a
pond and not a lake.1
Other national technical typologies do include a lower area requirement
ranging from .5 hectares ( 'two NFL football fields' for USA residents ) to
2 hectares, and other various factors like inflow/outflow, relation to the
water table, sediment suspension, etc.

The proper name of the water feature usually has nothing to do with these,
though. Our area has numerous 'Lake Something's which are impoundments that
barely would would classify as ponds, basically created by real estate
developers as bulldozer scrapes into the local water table.

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

[Tagging] US Forest Service (USDA) and logging

[Michael Patrick]

>
> > Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped
> in
> > OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use.
> > We simply cannot map them.
> >
>
> Well, this complicates things for the US, most national forests are for
> this purpose.
>

Actually, it is not 'most' ... 2,000 Million total acres of land, only 150
Million under unreserved forest land (timberland). And of that actual
harvesting affects only 10 million acres in the U.S. annually, or about
1.3% of all forest land. But, I agree, it is 'complicated':

"Forest-wide management requirements (standards and guidelines) for
resources and activities such as vegetation management, timber, wilderness,
fish and wildlife habitat, grazing, recreation, mineral exploration and
development, water and soils, cultural and historic resources, research
natural areas, and diversity of plant and animal communities. ...The
activities described in a management area prescription might include
motorized recreation, non-motorized recreation, ski areas, timber harvest,
livestock grazing, mineral exploration and development, roads and trails,
buildings, fire and fuels management, invasive species control, research
activities, and protection of resources such as air, water, riparian areas,
soils, wildlife habitat, species diversity, or cultural and historic
resources. "

Most state forest plans also follow the same multiple use model. And
'private' timberland is about the same amount of area as the public
timberland.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Michael Patrick]

 >>> 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?

Yes, boards of experts. Subject matter experts.

Almost every significant theme that could possibly go into OSM has already
has some sort of classification / attribute ( 'tagging' ) schemes suitable
for 'whatever' scale, from the simple to the complex, some of them dating
back over a hundred years.


   - Some, like the *APA Land-Based Classification Standards
   <https://www.planning.org/lbcs/standards/> (LBCS)* have been in
   development since before 1965. The LBCS can be used recursively through
   smaller levels of detail, so if you want, it's possible to describe a
   janitorial closet in an federal office rented from a commercial landlord in
   a historical building on land held in trust by a private foundation as part
   of a state university.
   - The* I**nternational Electrotechnical Commission* glossary (
   Electropedia ) has illustrated descriptions of anything attached to a power
   network, some already translated in multiple languages, for example overhead
   line tower structures
   <http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform=466-08-05>
   - There are *NAICIS* ( SIC ) codes with their European and international
   equivalents, with codings for establishment sizes, and supply chain roles (
   wholesale, retail, etc. ) like our local coffee shop
   <https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=722515>.
   - Outdoor display advertising ('signs') has an association with a
   typology of products from sidewalk switchboards to giant building sized LED
   billboards. Every scientific domain also has their hierarchical naming
   schemes for natural features, along wit efforts to reconcile the various
   domains like the *European Union's Inspire
   <https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/inspire-principles/9> *effort. ( short
   intro <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xew6qI-6wNk> ).
   - Over the past thirty years or so, a lot of people have been making
   serious efforts to *converge* on common terminology and meanings in
   their fields, and also between their fields, and tools such as crosswalks
   to highlight *similarities* and preserve *differences* where it matters.
   - One of the tools I use is *Suggested Upper Merged Ontology* (*SUMO*) -
   if I search on the word 'bus'
   
<http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:8080/sigma/WordNet.jsp?simple=null=SUMO=EnglishLanguage=SUO-KIF=bus=1>,
   it not only gives me the expected meaning, but a lot of other possible
   meanings ( which can cause side effects ).

This is only to answer the 'Designed by ... ?' comment. The complete list
of standard objections about complexity, interfaces, use by ordinary folks
has a considerable volume of academic work available on Google Scholar, if
anyone wanted to apply it to OSM.

A huge thanks for everyone who contributed to this discussion, I learned a
lot about OSM.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=cannabis

[Michael Patrick]

Here, Cliff :-)
( from https://lcb.wa.gov/records/frequently-requested-lists ):
Marijuana License Applicants
<https://lcb.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Public_Records/2017/MarijuanaApplicants.xls>(contains
both applicants and issued licenses) When active licenses come up for
renewal or are undergoing some sort of change their status is changed from
"Active" to "Pending (Issued)." Please include "Pending (Issued)" when
filtering to see all currently active licenses

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

[Michael Patrick]

> Have you considered using landsat-8 or sentinel-2 to get current landcover
> using the QGIS plugin Semi-Automatic Classification? Landviewer [1] has a
> nice interface for finding imagery that is cloud free and of recent
> vintage? The learning curve to landcover classification is a bit steep, but
> it should be sufficiently accurate for remote areas Clifford
>

Scandanavian Forest services already have extremely detailed web services
to provide this information ... '*Many users want to see how much forest
there is in a specified area, estimate its average age, and to see which
tree species it contains. SLU Forest Map contains spatial information with
a high degree of detail over most of Sweden's forestland. SLU Forest Map is
based on a combination of data from the Swedish National Forest Inventory
<https://www.slu.se/en/Collaborative-Centres-and-Projects/the-swedish-national-forest-inventory/>
and satellite data <https://saccess.lantmateriet.se/portal/saccess_se.htm>
...  SLU Forest Map is available free of charge as either a download or
within our web based GIS application.*'

... including delivery to *MineCraft* ...  ('Examples of the use of open
geodata in Minecraft
<http://www.lantmateriet.se/en/Maps-and-geographic-information/Maps/oppna-data/hamta-filer-till-minecraft/anvandningsexempel/#>')
... now that's Open Data!

My guess is the permits for future operations are online also. Such an
inventory is is a non-trivial task
<http://www.pobonline.com/articles/100691-forestry-by-way-of-aerial-imagery-remote-sensing-gis>,
especially maintaining it.

A better way to handle this would be a federated page that layers OSM and
the forestry web service(s).

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
OSM Seattle
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging earthquake vulnerabilities of buildings: Developing world

[Michael Patrick]

 Near Kathmandu, there's a series of tags relating to surveys of quake
 status of buildings. Would someone be interested in helping working out a
 proper tag scheme, and proposing it to whatever groups are doing this data
 collection?

 The intent is great, the execution... um...


The execution is in alignment with their intent.

Their scheme actually appears to be a localized and even more simplified
subset of ISO 28841:2013 Guidelines for simplified seismic assessment and
rehabilitation of concrete buildings: ( ... The rules of design as set
forth in ISO 28841:2013 are simplifications of more elaborate requirements.
... can be used as an alternative to the development of a building code, or
equivalent document in countries where no national design codes are
available by themselves, ), or something similar.

Their tagging system is derived from the cumulative efforts of thousands of
specialists ( seismologists, structural engineers, architects, etc.) over
decades with consultations of forensic experts with relief teams, created
by obviously people knowledgeable of local conditions and needs. In
combination with information not is OSM ( like the severity and location of
an actual event ), it would have great utility for triage and
prioritization of rescue and relief efforts. Or non-emergency upgrade
programs.

It looks long because of the manner of presentation and the duplications
caused by case insensitivity. In practice through an interface, it probably
isn't all that daunting to someone doing rapid field collection.

If there is a desire for OSM to grow by embracing communities of use, those
communities are going to arrive with their own ontologies and
classifications, and I doubt ('know') they are going sacrifice what they
regard as essential. And these groups will tend be a 'keystone community'
in an particular locality, and cause a lot of the other regular OSM
geometry in an area to be created and maintained, and their local
partnerships will create additional efforts and mappers.

IMHO, as long as they are operating in their area, I'd leave them alone and
see how it evolves. If it really is to complicated, they will soon figure
it out themselves. Most I'd do is ask them to put up a wikipage explaining
the intent and application.

Michael Patrick
Seattle OSM
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

[Michael Patrick]

 While realigning the coastline is possible, they will be surveying for a
decade or so just to figure out everything that moved.

No, not a decade.

While it will take some amount of time for changes to propagate to
cartographic products according to their update cycle, the 'figuring out
what moved' happens in essentially real time across the major geodetic
network, and probably across a month depending on the ephemeris of the JAXA
and ESA SARsat http://vldb.gsi.go.jp/sokuchi/sar/index-e.html platforms,
although that is probably according to some sort of priority criteria
derived from the GNSS data.

See Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, １．Continuous observation at
the GNSS-based control stations and ４．Synthetic Aperture Radar
observation at http://www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH/page_e30068.html

Coastal survey is longer, because of temporal interval required to
interpolate and detect sea level extremes  between the phasing of the tides
and the satellites, look angles, etc.

Michael Patrick
Geospatial Analyst
http://www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH/page_e30068.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] RFC - Extended tags for Key:Surveillance

[Michael Patrick]

After reading the Feature Proposal  at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance
it
seems that  I want this proposal to open up the possibility of mapping the
broadest possible spectrum of surveillance might indicate changing the
proposal Key to the broader term of 'Sensor'. 'Surveillance' describes a
very specific negative connotation. Also, even in the case of video, there
can be audio present, which indicates that at any location there might be a
wide variety of sensors at a particular location. For example, some of our
local weather stations have webcam feeds so one can actually see what the
weather is like, along with the actual 'data' feeds. A video camera is just
one sort of sensor, and reading the FP it seems you accommodated this with
the Surveillance item specific tags. For that set of tags, there are at
least several ontologies and standards out there that could provide you
with exhaustive sets of concepts you could then extract from. From the W3C
at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Report_Work_on_the_SSN_ontology :
,ie. which perspective are you using?

The ontology can be used for a focus on any (or a combination) of a number
of perspectives:

   - A sensor perspective, with a focus on what senses, how it senses, and
   what is sensed;
   - A data or observation perspective, with a focus on observations and
   related metadata;
   - A system perspective, with a focus on systems of sensors; or,
   - A feature and property perspective, with a focus on features,
   properties of them, and what can sense those properties.


 Let me know if you have things to say ;)

It seems that lumping things like guards and dogs in with sensors is
awkward at best. Would this then include Neighborhood Watch group members,
for instance? Even the word guard is problematic, how could someone tell a
grounds caretaker from an armed guard, or someone in a business suit that
could be a US Marshal or a well dressed receptionist. This would seem
better handled separately in some sort of Law Enforcement ( official,
private, para, public ) tag set.

It would seem that word  'surveillance' rather than being the major key it
should instead be be relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy as one choice
of perhaps multiple functional intents, for instance ( forgive the ad hoc
syntax), sensor( type:video (  observation:trafficcontrol, observation:
trafficenforcement, observation:surveilance , observation:
 energymanagement, observation:pigeonfeeding )) in the next decade sensors
(including video) are going to be ubiquitous, and will probably far
outnumber the Law Enforcement cctv  (see
http://www.ict-sensei.org/index.php?option=com_frontpageItemid=48 for
example). Since the same sensor may feed multiple networks for each type of
observation you might specify which agency is getting that data, police,
corporate, EPA, etc. if known.

 Nice, finally the open burglary map comes closer ;-)

First thought in my mind was the law of unintended consequences, where this
allows the Orwellian Overlords to progressively refine their efforts,
eventually using concealed cameras to tape unsuspecting miscreants in the
few remaining areas.

 2. Isn't there one parameter missing to deduct the actual area covered by
a camera? I'd think you needed 3 values: direction the camera

 points to (in 3d, e.g. azimuth and  altitude) plus the field of view or
focal length. This is of course purely theoretical because the cameras
might be able to move and most mappers won't probably be able to add high
precision orientation data (usually you will have to

 estimate these values).

While you address camera capabilities, what is probably more significant to
the public is the scene viewed by the camera. If you wanted to hairsplit
this aspect further for video, there are several active projects with
proposed ontologies for scene description and field of view, etc. that
could be the basis of more detailed tags.
http://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Francois.Bremond/topicsText/advisorProject.html
Again, you could subset these to make a doable tagset for ordinary mappers.
My guess is that the machine vision people already have established
something simple for outdoor areas ( for instance, autonomous vehicles use
outside cameras in a location if available for scene refinement.

These and similar ontologies, standards, metadata appear intimidating at
first, and very complex, but they are usually the results of collaborative
effort of hundreds of knowledgeable people over years, and serve as at
least a starting point, carve out the rest, and leave the best for your
purposes. One or a few individuals can rarely conceive of all the
overlapping properties and aspects of physical objects ( especially on a
worldwide basis, IMHO you can get a head start by not re-inventing the
wheel.

Michael Patrick
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 40, Issue 15

[Michael Patrick]

Just my clarification ... we are blessed just about all those bridge types
except the gondola. First,on first glance 'movable' subsumes all the other
movable types. if it is exclusive of those, I might suggest
'movable_other', or something similar (our former I-520 Evergreen Point
bridge had a bulge, which had a 'retractable' span (see
http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/03/01/47/793032/3/628x471.jpg ). Also, when the
bridge has multiple types of structures and spans, how is that addressed -
i.e. beam, floating, truss, and viaduct probably simultaneously exist on
the same named 'bridge, is each way segment named the same but separately?
Or just the primary distinctive feature? Could you tag the I-90 Bridge from
Seattle to Bellevue as an example (Tunnel - beam - viaduct - float - beam -
etc.)?

Thanks,
Michael Patrick


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:00 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

 Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
 tagging@openstreetmap.org

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of Tagging digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key (Deanna Earley)
2. Re: Source tag - deprecated for use on objects? (Deanna Earley)
3. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key (Rob Nickerson)
4. Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types (Christopher Hoess)
5. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types (Clifford Snow)
6. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types (Christopher Hoess)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:58:55 +
 From: Deanna Earley d...@earlsoft.co.uk
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key
 Message-ID: 50eee53f.7060...@earlsoft.co.uk
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

 Hi all.

 I have proposed the start of the roller_coaster key as way to
 standardise on tagging of roller coaster features. Especially now we're
 getting details enough to be able to include this extra information.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/key:roller_coaster

 The initial proposal is just for the track and station values but other
 values will be valid.

 Any and all comments and feedback are welcome on the talk page

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/key:roller_coaster

 Many thanks
 (Resent as my original on 2012/12/10 doesn't seem to have been approved)

 --
 Deanna Earley (d...@earlsoft.co.uk)

 web:http://www.earlsoft.co.uk
 phone:  +44 (0)780 8369596



 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:12:11 +
 From: Deanna Earley d...@earlsoft.co.uk
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?
 Message-ID: 50eee85b.6000...@earlsoft.co.uk
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

 On 07/01/2013 22:16, Pieren wrote:
  On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Eckhart W?rner ewoer...@kde.org wrote:
  Except that source-tag-on-object does not work either for real-world
 mapping. Source tags are rarely updated when the source changes.
 
  Eckhart
 
  I think this discussion and previous ones about this topic
  demonstrates one point : sourcing in OSM will never be perfect.
  Because we have elements with history from multiple contributors and
  with attributes from multiple sources. Because we cannot expecte
  people to always have a single source per changeset. Because we cannot
  expect people to always insert or update the tag source each time they
  modify something.

 Exactly.
 A changeset I uploaded the other day had some data realigned with Bing
 (from OS StreetView), local knowledge and GPS traces.

 Doing this with source on changeset would require bits and pieces of
 work, many changesets (no doubt, I'd forget a bit) or a single This
 data came from Bing, GPS, my knowledge, OS streetview, I'll let you
 guess what and where

 This is the reason there are tags like source:name, source:othertag, etc.

 Regarding changing the source when it's realligned, sadly people don't
 do things properly, but that's why we have the history.

 --
 Deanna Earley (d...@earlsoft.co.uk)

 web:http://www.earlsoft.co.uk
 phone:  +44 (0)780 8369596



 --

 Message: 3
 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 19:25:05 +
 From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - roller_coaster key
 Message-ID:
 
 cak4yqtmdnjunjnlnjfza+cf_ya2znwo8ibmjfxqnxq_cieo...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types

[Michael Patrick]

( My apologies to the list for inadvertently regurgitating an undigested
reply back onto the list )

  I think I like the bridge:movable suggestion made there. (So movable
 bridges would be tagged, e.g., bridge=movable; bridge:movable= bascule
 and so forth.)


So would there be a reflective tag bridge:fixed, etc. (I'll go look)

That also makes it a little easier to parse for a (hypothetical)
 downstream piece of routing software; it doesn't care to learn about
 all the different varieties of movable bridge, it just needs to be
 able to spot bridges that could open and leave you stuck in a traffic
 jam.


Which is what prompted my question about the individual span types, the
various bridges have names like 'The Eastern High Rise', etc. that radio
traffic announcers and EMS uses, and there are exit opportunities for some.


  This is my approximation for the eastbound lanes
 of I-90, moving from west to east. Segment 1 (over roads):
 bridge=yes; bridge_type=beam. Segment 2: bridge=yes;
 bridge_type=truss. (bridge=viaduct might be OK for this, too;
 that's sort of a matter of taste.) Segment 3: bridge=yes;
 bridge_type=arch. Segment 4: bridge=yes; bridge_type=floating.
 Segment 5: bridge=yes; bridge_type=arch. Segment 6: bridge=yes;
 bridge_type=beam.


Thank you for your time constructing the example.


   And this kind of span-by-span breakdown does have some potential
 when it comes to navigation. In bridges crossing navigable estuaries, it's
 not uncommon to have a long series of fixed spans with a movable span
 somewhere in the middle over the navigation channel. In that case, it's
 certainly useful to distinguish between the movable and the fixed spans, as
 it defines the location of the channel.


I've noticed around here maintenance, reconstruction
like seismic refitting, etc seem to be defined by the span type. So I think
it would be useful also.

Michael Patrick
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging