Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?
Right, this is what I was thinking as well, it makes a lot of sense to have the direction that's on the sign post to aid with navigation. It seems a dedicated wiki that documents current practices would be helpful. Thank you! On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 16:33 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 16.12.2020 14:19, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, at 05:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > > What is written on the sign at this junction? If "North" is > > > mentioned there I would behappy enough with the tagging above. > > > > That is correct, the sign says "I 787 North". However the wiki page > > for the destination:ref key states: > > The key destination:ref < > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination:ref>=* should > > beused to specify the reference of the roads directly ahead as > > indicated on signposts, roadmarkings or similar. The value of > > this key should be equal to the value of the key ref< > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref>=* of these roads. > > Note the last sentence. If the destination:ref must be the same as > > the ref it is going to, then this would be I 787, or else all the > > ways along the entire I 787 route should have their ref tags > > changed to indicate direction as well. > > Well, it says 'should', not 'must', thus in this case using > destination:ref="I 787 North" is a refinement of just "I 787". Maybe > an improvement for the phrase in the wiki would be"should be equal to > or a further qualification of related to the value...". > On 16.12.2020 15:41, Paul Johnson wrote: > Wouldn't it make more > sense, and isn't it already more common, for destination tags to > contain the > information on the destination signs, which /do/ > differentiate direction? > Haven't analysed that, but if the destinations are signposted that > way, it should be reflected inthe tagging. > > I feel like this is another example of "the wiki was written by > someone with inadequate information." > Both tagging and wiki develop, hopefully forward. In this case, > Key:destination:ref redirectsonto an old 2012 proposal, I'm probably > going to resolve that soon with describing the current practice. > tom > > ___Tagging mailing > listtagg...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, at 05:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Trying to understand your question, the way in your example is tagged: destination Troy destination:ref I 787 North From the data consumer perspective, such tagging will generate a navigation instruction: "turn slightly right towards Troy, I 787 North". This would be helpful as long as the driver is able to recognise it on the local signposting. What is written on the sign at this junction? If "North" is mentioned there I would be happy enough with the tagging above. That is correct, the sign says "I 787 North". However the wiki page for the destination:ref key states: The key destination:ref=* should be used to specify the reference of the roads directly ahead as indicated on signposts, road markings or similar. The value of this key should be equal to the value of the key ref=* of these roads. Note the last sentence. If the destination:ref must be the same as the ref it is going to, then this would be I 787, or else all the ways along the entire I 787 route should have their ref tags changed to indicate direction as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] destination:ref with direction?
I've seen a few examples in both New York and California put in the tags of on-ramps the destination:ref that has the direction in it, e.g.: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5566969 However, after looking through the wiki, to my surprise, I cannot find this practice mentioned anywhere. It made sense to me when I saw it because how else is GPS navigation supposed to tell you which highway to get onto? But I don't see it mentioned anywhere, and in fact, the only thing the wiki page on Highway Directions in the United States mentions is putting the direction on the ways of the actual freeway. Is this practice incorrect? -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Edited the wiki for building=terrace
Hi everyone, A couple weeks ago, I started a thread regarding how to tag terrace buildings when the entire building has a name. I proposed an alternative tagging scheme to handle such cases, and others where it's clear that the building is one cohesive unit. As a result of that discussion, I made some edits to the wiki page for building=terrace. A review and any feedback is welcome, as are further edits if there is further clarification in order, or if there is strong objection to the tagging scheme described. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
This is a very interesting example; thanks for sharing it! It definitely helps me see where you're coming from, and how this practice came into common use. Although it is a very ambiguous situation, I would still side on this being a single building that just so happens to have grown slowly over time. Although I would not disagree that they are separate buildings either. However, your example seems like a case that is particularly ambiguous. I'm not sure if it's totally comparable to the case I mentioned, which seems more clear cut to me. It's a single building purpose built to contain 8 homes, all by the same builder, all in the same style. Additionally, these homes are part of a homeowner's association, which means there are restrictions even on what the owners can do to the exterior without approval from the association, and large structural changes to the buildings are not likely in the foreseeable future. What I'm thinking is that it might be useful to have a concise discussion of this ambiguity in the wiki page. Since it seems to be up to interpretation, though, it seems providing different ways of representing the varying levels of ambiguity in the real world would be useful. -- Skyler -- Skyler On July 7, 2020 18:06:26 Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 22:41, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: My own personal interpretation would be to say that if two houses share a wall, they are part of the same building. Buildings are expanded all the time. If a shopping mall expands a wing to give more space for more shops, we do not say the new section is a separate building; we say the building has gotten larger. Copyright prevents us using Google Streetview for mapping, but we can use it for illustrative purposes. https://goo.gl/maps/o6ribodaAqUhvak2A That group of five dwellings was originally called Priory Terrace (the name is not part of the address and few people know it used to be called that). They were built at the same time by the same builder and are listed by a heritage organization as being of significant value. Talk a walk to the north-east (left in the image) and you will see a long line of conjoined buildings of different styles. Most (all?) of those other buildings were built after the first 5, yet it would be perverse to describe them as extending or enlarging those original 5 dwellings. They're houses that happen to share side walls (because it's cheaper and lets them take up less room). I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it is still applicable: when we're tagging shopping centers, where there is a large building containing several shops, we tag the large structure as building=retail, and the shops as amenity=*; we do not map them as building=shop or something like that, because they are not separate buildings. Why do this for houses/dwellings? Because if you followed that Streetview walk, you'd have countered 33 dwellings in that terrace. It's nice to be able to give them addresses. Because they're of different sizes, it's nice to show where the boundaries between them are. This is the start of that walk: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08572=-4.65826#map=19/52.08572/-4.65826 Your personal justificatons for your mapping choices are perfectly fine, but that's not what I'm proposing changing. Since it is not well- defined what to do when a terrace has a name, that is why I am proposing the tagging scheme with a different usage of building=terrace than what you and the wiki say, My opinion counts for no more than anybody else's, so you are free to disregard it. Redefining established use of a tag is problematic. To say the least. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 22:14 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > Consider a house. In your understanding it is both a building and a > house, > and we tag it building=house. Now consider another house is built > adjacent and conjoining, so that they share a side wall. Two houses > in your understanding. If they were both built at the same time by > the same builder, we could say they were one building. But > these were built at different times, in different styles by different > builders - one building or two? What if they were built at > different times by different builders but in the same style so > they harmonize (without historical data you might think > they were built at the same time). My own personal interpretation would be to say that if two houses share a wall, they are part of the same building. Buildings are expanded all the time. If a shopping mall expands a wing to give more space for more shops, we do not say the new section is a separate building; we say the building has gotten larger. I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it is still applicable: when we're tagging shopping centers, where there is a large building containing several shops, we tag the large structure as building=retail, and the shops as amenity=*; we do not map them as building=shop or something like that, because they are not separate buildings. Why do this for houses/dwellings? > > If there are three houses they are a terrace (maybe) but if there > are only two houses then they are both semi-detached buildings > (except few bother with that tag). We've tried various ways of > dealing > with these things. Reality is messy. Our tagging is messy. Sadly, > these > are two different messes. > > i see only three cases where I'd use building=terrace > > 1) I want to map a row of houses from aerial imagery where I don't > know the addresses and can't precisely determine the boundaries so > don't even know how many dwellings there are. I tend to avoid > mapping this type of situation. > > 2) The terrace itself has a name that is a required part of the > address. > This is a horrible situation, not well-handled by any solution. > Especially > when some of those houses may have their own names. > Your personal justificatons for your mapping choices are perfectly fine, but that's not what I'm proposing changing. Since it is not well- defined what to do when a terrace has a name, that is why I am proposing the tagging scheme with a different usage of building=terrace than what you and the wiki say, that is, only when you don't know the borders of the individual dwellings. We can choose to expand its usage, and I don't see why not to. It does not introduce any new tags, or propose changing any existing map data, and it fills a gap for certain use cases. > 3) The terrace has a name which is no longer part of the address. > It is at one end of what is a very long terrace of houses built at > various times and which share side walls. The fact that five > houses were once referred to as Priory Terrace in times long > pass didn't merit wrapping them in a building=terrace. I think it's well-understood that OSM should prefer the present reality on the ground. Historical names and other data aren't under discsussion right now. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 21:00 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 20:32, Skyler Hawthorne > wrote: > > Maybe it wasn't clear, but what I'm suggesting isn't to remove the > > suggestion of tagging as individual building=houses, but adding > > another > > section that says something to the effect of "for cases where the > > terraced houses are part of a large building, and not simply > > attached > > houses, another approach could be this way..." > > That depends what you mean by "large building." The original > British terminology, and the current American terminology, is > "row house." Houses with common side walls built in a row. > > If you are suggesting using terrace to describe a topology that > isn't actually a row of houses, that would be very confusing. > > -- > Paul On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 15:47 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > This seems like a really grey area. See also notes below. > > A good question might be, do they have separate *entrances*? If not > (e.g. some condominiums), then they should possibly be tagged as > apartments. In this case, it appears the entrances are separate. > > Personally, if it's possible to determine the boundaries between > properties, my inclination would be to model them as separate > buildings. > (It's somewhat worth noting that townhouses are *owned*, at least in > part, separately.) Property records can probably help with this. You > can > probably get shapefiles of the property boundaries from the county. > (Conversely, if they *aren't* separate lots, that would be an > argument > for modeling them as single buildings.) > They each have separate entrances, and house numbers. Public tax lot records confirm that they are indeed separate lots. But I'm starting to think that maybe this issue is coming down to semantics. What exactly do we mean when we say "building" vs "house"? The personal interpretation I am working off of is that a "building" is the complete physical structure, whereas a "house" in the context of the existing OSM tags (although maybe not in the general sense of the word) is the dwelling in which someone lives. So with this interpretation, a terrace is one building that contains multiple houses (or dwellings, or whatever). To me, it doesn't make sense to say that each house is a separate building. Admittedly, I just map as a hobby, and I am not anything like a subject matter expert, so I do not claim that these interpretations are the "correct" ones. But I would be interested to hear if anyone else has more knowledge or a different interpretation. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 19:42 +0100, Neil Matthews wrote: > Do not change the wiki - there are many different equally valid ways > of > tagging terraced houses. I favour breaking terraces into individual > dwellings/houses. Thanks for your feedback. I'm sorry, but I think your second sentence doesn't really follow from your first. If there are many equally valid ways of tagging terraced houses, why not document them all in the wiki? Maybe it wasn't clear, but what I'm suggesting isn't to remove the suggestion of tagging as individual building=houses, but adding another section that says something to the effect of "for cases where the terraced houses are part of a large building, and not simply attached houses, another approach could be this way..." -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 19:48 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > It seems that "terrace buildings" is used to describe both collection > of individual buildings > and to large building, so maybe both tagging methods are applicable. > > So far all cases that I found are better described as set of > individual similar buildings > > Can you share/link photo with your case where single building is a > better tagging? Sure thing, it's here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.69323/-73.69023 A survey confirmed that they are large buildings with individual units, rather than just a series of attached, separate homes. I did not take photos, as I am not comfortable taking pictures of peoples' homes, but you can see clearly from the aerial photos that the one building that had finished construction at the time the photo was taken shows it as one big building. > > In general - editing wiki is OK without special discussion (except > clearly controversial cases), > but reverting such changes is also OK. > > Discussion may happen both before any edit or start after edit > (either in "can someone look > at edit that I just made and review it" or where someone disagrees > with edit and > editors want to get more feedback). Awesome, thanks for the response! I'll wait a bit to give more people a chance to chime in, but the more I think about it, the more I think that mapping large terrace buildings like this as building=terrace and mapping each individual home as building:part=house makes the most sense for cases like this, especially when the building as a whole has some properties that apply to all the buildings, such as names, but also levels, height, etc. I've personally seen other large complexes that consist of large buildings with several housing units, and each of the buildings are named with something like "Building A", "Building B", etc. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
I settled on using building:part=house for the individual houses and wrapping the whole building with building=terrace. I think this makes more sense anyway, tagging the individual houses as part of the larger building. Thanks for pointing me to building:part=*! In general, how should one approach making an edit to the wiki? If I wanted to suggest this approach in the wiki, should I start a separate email thread to discuss this tagging scheme before editing the wiki page? -- Skyler On July 7, 2020 07:22:02 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 6. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: According to the wiki page about building=terrace, it is usually best practice to map each house as a separate area (closed way) object. "A more detailed and recommended alternative is to map each dwelling separately using building=house, but keeping at least two nodes in common for adjoining houses." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace If you map each house individually, it is not necessary to map the whole outline of the row of houses. right, but the question was: how do you add a name to the ensemble? I.e. an entity is required where the name can be attached to. An alternative could be to add addr:housename to the individual houses, but it would not exactly be the same thing. It would look like many adjacent houses which all bear the same name. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
> I'm also, in a more general sense, raising a question about the > established conventions and whether it makes sense to be tagging the > individual units as "buildings", when they are not really buildings > in and of themselves, but sections of one larger building that > contains several other units. > To expand on this a bit, for example, if we are tagging a shopping center that has one large building which contains several individual shops, you tag the whole building with building=retail and amenity=* or shop=*, not building=shop or something like that. It's just curious that for terraces, the convention is to tag each individual unit as a building in its own right. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
On Mon, 2020-07-06 at 13:40 -0700, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > According to the wiki page about building=terrace, it is usually best > practice to map each house as a separate area (closed way) object. > > "A more detailed and recommended alternative is to map each dwelling > separately using building=house, but keeping at least two nodes in > common for adjoining houses." > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace > > > If you map each house individually, it is not necessary to map the > whole outline of the row of houses. > > – Joseph Eisenberg Thanks for your reply. It may not be "necessary", but it is what I desire (in order to name each building), and I'm asking if there's a tagging scheme to do this that makes sense. I'm also, in a more general sense, raising a question about the established conventions and whether it makes sense to be tagging the individual units as "buildings", when they are not really buildings in and of themselves, but sections of one larger building that contains several other units. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
Hello. I am mapping a housing development that has a few terrace buildings that each have several town homes that share walls. From what I've gathered from the wiki, you can either: 1. Draw a way around the whole building and tag it with building=terrace, and then add entrance nodes with addresses, or 2. Draw the outline of the terrace builiding, but then make ways inside the building to create detailed borders of the individual properties inside the terrace building, and map each of those ways with building=house with the address. I like having the borders of each home, so I want to do the second option, but the other issue I'm thinking about is each building is numbered, so I would like to name the whole building, but how would I tag this? Having a way on the outline of the building with only a name tag seems wrong, but it also seems wrong to tag it with building=terrace if the individual units are tagged with building=house; it would seem like having buildings inside buildings, which Osmose actually complains about. Are there any alternative schemes? Is there a tag to indicate that a closed way represents a "dwelling" or "housing unit", but not a standalone building in and of itself? Or, what if I tagged the whole building with building=terrace, and then the ways inside just have address tags? -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong wrote: I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed. I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist. - Jack Armstrong chachafish I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in the data. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to tag parking area where it doesn't make sense to have a way go through it
There are certain residential areas where there are designated parking spots, either for individuals or guests, that are accessible from a road, but are not necessarily a "parking lot" where it would make sense to have a service road go through it. Here is an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/788283564 How should one tag this? The wiki for amenity=parking mentions that one should not have a way connected to just the edge of a parking area, but Osmose considers it a bug if there isn't a connecting way. I saw parking:lane=* as well, but that seems its intended purpose is to map where there is parking along the way itself, not in dedicated spaces like this. -- Skyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
