Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/08/18 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:
>


> I recently came across someone adding the address as the name,
> unfortunately one of the buildings had a real name that I recalled .. and
> it was not the address.
> So while the address may be displayed outside on the building facade, I
> would not take it to be the name of the building without further evidence.
>

This one was a difficult call.  On its own I'd have said it was a
pretentious way of displaying the house number.
But there's a name plate in the same material, style, font and lack of
weathering for "The Annexe" which is arrived
at via a footpath at the side which leads to a rear extension of the
building.  The building in question had no other
identification but through the window I could see it was an office of some
nature.   It also had an entry phone  with
a notice saying that callers needed an appointment.  The Annexe, though,
identified the function of the place.

I know, from the Annexe signage, they were hiding their function from the
general public.  Although I understand their
reasoning, I also know that security through obscurity doesn't work (but
I'm respecting their secrecy anyway).  Although
they don't want the general public to know what they do, they want their
legitimate callers to be sure they've found the
right place.  A housename unlikely to appear on any other house on a
different street meets that need.  I'd have chosen
something like "Coprolite" or "Tibetan Blackbird" but not everyone has my
sense of humour.

The other thing about using "Number 39" as a house name is that they don't
have to go through the process of
formally registering the name with the County Council, which they are
legally required to do (almost nobody does,
but they're supposed to).  They can tell the council it's just a number,
not a name, and the council would have
better things to do than push the point.

Difficult call, but it quacked more like a house name than a number.  As
you can see from this (which I don't
use for mapping but is acceptable for making a point here):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0824887,-4.6596585,3a,15y,119.06h,86.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shXJ2DTi4jllXdFtJpx1xnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The sign for
"The Annexe" is blurred but you can see it.  If "Number 39" were intended
to be a house number they'd have put
"39" and "39A" on the signs.  Fewer letters so lower cost for the two signs.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Warin]

On 02/08/18 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:48 PM, althio > wrote:


For the Old Course at Saint Andrews (ancient and well-known golf
course), holes do have names.

See the Wikipedia page or the website.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Course_at_St_Andrews#Scorecard


I think tags on OSM should be (it is not the case currently):
ref=1
name=Burn

ref=2
name=Dyke



I did look, some time ago, at St Andrews on OSM .. I do recall seeing 
names, not numbers being displayed but I cannot recall the specifics.
I think there is more than one 'course' at St Andrews... but I could be 
wrong.


Some courses give their holes names as well as numbers.  So ref=2 + 
name=Dyke makes perfect sense.  Some
courses just use the hole number as its name.  So ref=2 + name=2 makes 
sense to me, because it is useful to
identify things with labels.  I'd even go so far as to say in that 
situation you could make do with name=2 alone.


We do have the situation where houses can have names or numbers or 
both.  There's not enough room (usually) to
render both but there is often room to render at least one of them.  
Half the houses where I live have only names.  Some
have only numbers,  Some have both.  And one has the name "Number 
39."  Really.  It is number 39, but it also says on
the front "Number 39" in the same style, font and material as an 
adjacent sign says "The Annexe."


I recently came across someone adding the address as the name, 
unfortunately one of the buildings had a real name that I recalled .. 
and it was not the address.
So while the address may be displayed outside on the building facade, I 
would not take it to be the name of the building without further evidence.

Some are adaptations of the number for example 'One on Macquarie Street".
Older buildings, including houses, have names that predate the house 
numbers.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:48 PM, althio  wrote:

> For the Old Course at Saint Andrews (ancient and well-known golf course),
> holes do have names.
>
> See the Wikipedia page or the website.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Course_at_St_Andrews#Scorecard
>
> I think tags on OSM should be (it is not the case currently):
> ref=1
> name=Burn
>
> ref=2
> name=Dyke
>

Some courses give their holes names as well as numbers.  So ref=2 +
name=Dyke makes perfect sense.  Some
courses just use the hole number as its name.  So ref=2 + name=2 makes
sense to me, because it is useful to
identify things with labels.  I'd even go so far as to say in that
situation you could make do with name=2 alone.

We do have the situation where houses can have names or numbers or both.
There's not enough room (usually) to
render both but there is often room to render at least one of them.  Half
the houses where I live have only names.  Some
have only numbers,  Some have both.  And one has the name "Number 39."
Really.  It is number 39, but it also says on
the front "Number 39" in the same style, font and material as an adjacent
sign says "The Annexe."

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[althio]

For the Old Course at Saint Andrews (ancient and well-known golf course),
holes do have names.

See the Wikipedia page or the website.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Course_at_St_Andrews#Scorecard

I think tags on OSM should be (it is not the case currently):
ref=1
name=Burn

ref=2
name=Dyke

…

-- althio


On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 14:11 Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a
> reference number is also needed, it makes
> sense.  In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref, which
> isn't rendered, rather than name.
>
>> Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not encourage
>> even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a render that shows
>> what you want for a particular purpose.
>>
> Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or
> allotment plots.  Name is to be used for names
> and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both
> names and descriptions.  As in "I saw him 5 minutes
> ago teeing off at hole 7."  In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5 minutes
> ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
> The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if not
> more so.
>
> --
> Paul
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry.. don't know what an 'allotment plot' is? I don't see that mentioned
> in the OSMwikis for golf.
>

Allotment plots are nothing to do with golf.  I brought them up as another
example, like putting greens, where it
has been decreed that we use a non-rendered ref=* instead of a rendered
name=* for what are labels which
uniquely identify (given some additional context) an object.  The same
thinking would (if taken to extremes)
have us use ref=7 instead of addr:housenumber=7.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Warin]

Sorry.. don't know what an 'allotment plot' is? I don't see that 
mentioned in the OSMwikis for golf.


I follow the rest of the 'ref' argument. Will have to look at it.

On 02/08/18 22:09, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chris Hill > wrote:


I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense.

In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a 
reference number is also needed, it makes
sense.  In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref, 
which isn't rendered, rather than name.


I'm not a golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a
name and the individual plots have a number (ref=*).

Yes, that's how it was defined.  Which makes no sense. Because what 
use is it not displaying allotment numbers?


As it happens, plots aren't rendered at all in OSM Carto, but I 
believe it's on the to-do list.  When (if) that happens then
the plot boundaries will be rendered but the plot number will not (if 
you do what the wiki says and identify them with

ref).

The guy who wrote the proposal for allotment plots gave an example in 
his proposal.  Of the entire allotment NONE
of them had refs, but one of them had a name.  So it didn't make 
sense, even to him.


The OSM Standard map can't show everything. We used to have a map
like that as a sort of 'debug' map for mappers; it was useful but
horrible to look at as everything was jammed in and not one to
share more widely.

Please don't use that argument for allotments and golf courses, 
because it doesn't apply to them.  Sure, in some
situations not everything fits.  I've mapped shops along a high street 
and not all of their names display because there
is no room (vector mapping may allow higher zooms one day, and then 
they will display).  But that's not the case with
allotments or golf courses.  There's plenty of room for plot 
numbers/hole numbers to be displayed without looking
cluttered because they are widely-spaced and there are no other 
details nearby.


An argument I might accept is that the steps transforming data to 
rendering are horribly complex and highly
inefficient and we don't have the compute power to handle allotments 
and golf courses on top of everything else.  But

please don't trot out the "clutter" argument where it doesn't apply.

Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not
encourage even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a
render that shows what you want for a particular purpose.

Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or 
allotment plots.  Name is to be used for names
and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both 
names and descriptions.  As in "I saw him 5 minutes
ago teeing off at hole 7."  In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5 
minutes ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if 
not more so.


What might be more sensible is for the carto to render a ref if there 
is no name=* in the same way that house names
get rendered if there is no addr:number (which applies to about half 
the houses where I live).  But I'd still like to know

why golf greens and allotment plots specified ref instead of name.

--
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] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chris Hill  wrote:

> I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense.
>
In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a
reference number is also needed, it makes
sense.  In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref, which
isn't rendered, rather than name.

> I'm not a golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a name and
> the individual plots have a number (ref=*).
>
Yes, that's how it was defined.  Which makes no sense.  Because what use is
it not displaying allotment numbers?

As it happens, plots aren't rendered at all in OSM Carto, but I believe
it's on the to-do list.  When (if) that happens then
the plot boundaries will be rendered but the plot number will not (if you
do what the wiki says and identify them with
ref).

The guy who wrote the proposal for allotment plots gave an example in his
proposal.  Of the entire allotment NONE
of them had refs, but one of them had a name.  So it didn't make sense,
even to him.

> The OSM Standard map can't show everything. We used to have a map like
> that as a sort of 'debug' map for mappers; it was useful but horrible to
> look at as everything was jammed in and not one to share more widely.
>
Please don't use that argument for allotments and golf courses, because it
doesn't apply to them.  Sure, in some
situations not everything fits.  I've mapped shops along a high street and
not all of their names display because there
is no room (vector mapping may allow higher zooms one day, and then they
will display).  But that's not the case with
allotments or golf courses.  There's plenty of room for plot numbers/hole
numbers to be displayed without looking
cluttered because they are widely-spaced and there are no other details
nearby.

An argument I might accept is that the steps transforming data to rendering
are horribly complex and highly
inefficient and we don't have the compute power to handle allotments and
golf courses on top of everything else.  But
please don't trot out the "clutter" argument where it doesn't apply.

> Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not encourage
> even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a render that shows
> what you want for a particular purpose.
>
Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or
allotment plots.  Name is to be used for names
and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both
names and descriptions.  As in "I saw him 5 minutes
ago teeing off at hole 7."  In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5 minutes
ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if not
more so.

What might be more sensible is for the carto to render a ref if there is no
name=* in the same way that house names
get rendered if there is no addr:number (which applies to about half the
houses where I live).  But I'd still like to know
why golf greens and allotment plots specified ref instead of name.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Chris Hill]

I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense. I'm not a 
golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a name and the 
individual plots have a number (ref=*). The OSM Standard map can't show 
everything. We used to have a map like that as a sort of 'debug' map for 
mappers; it was useful but horrible to look at as everything was jammed 
in and not one to share more widely. Abusing the name tag is a common 
beginner's mistake, let's not encourage even more use of the name tag - 
rather make or find a render that shows what you want for a particular 
purpose.


If RichardF's push towards vector maps bears fruit, displaying specific 
items for your own needs should become easier. If Richard succeeds, then 
an OBE should follow his recent award! Well done Richard.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 01/08/2018 23:49, Paul Allen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



What's the green dot in the middle of the 13th fairway?

With some detective work, it turns out to be a tree.

What puzzles me about golf putting greens and allotment plots is this: 
why did they choose to embed useful information
in a ref (which doesn't get rendered in OSM carto) instead of a name 
(which is rendered)?  Andy's style displays
refs; look at the same course in OSM and you have no way of telling 
which green is which.


This is even more puzzling when I see that the guy who proposed the 
allotment plot tag explicitly mentioned ref but,
in the proposal page his example leads to the only plot in the 
allotment which has a name (and none of the plots have
refs).  Yes, data protection means allotment plots usually should not 
have a person's name but this was something like
the Fred Bloggs Memorial Allotment.  But why hide allotment numbers in 
references rather than displaying them as a
name where people can actually see the plot they're looking for.  
"I've assigned you plot 12, here's a map of the
allotment that doesn't display the plot numbers, so you'll have to 
guess where yours is."


What piece of OSM history that I know nothing of led people to decide 
that it was sensible to encode useful
information that people would wish to see on a map in a way that 
doesn't get displayed?


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> What's the green dot in the middle of the 13th fairway?
>

With some detective work, it turns out to be a tree.

What puzzles me about golf putting greens and allotment plots is this: why
did they choose to embed useful information
in a ref (which doesn't get rendered in OSM carto) instead of a name (which
is rendered)?  Andy's style displays
refs; look at the same course in OSM and you have no way of telling which
green is which.

This is even more puzzling when I see that the guy who proposed the
allotment plot tag explicitly mentioned ref but,
in the proposal page his example leads to the only plot in the allotment
which has a name (and none of the plots have
refs).  Yes, data protection means allotment plots usually should not have
a person's name but this was something like
the Fred Bloggs Memorial Allotment.  But why hide allotment numbers in
references rather than displaying them as a
name where people can actually see the plot they're looking for.  "I've
assigned you plot 12, here's a map of the
allotment that doesn't display the plot numbers, so you'll have to guess
where yours is."

What piece of OSM history that I know nothing of led people to decide that
it was sensible to encode useful
information that people would wish to see on a map in a way that doesn't
get displayed?

BTW, I don't even know which end of a golf bat to hold, but there are two
courses a few miles from me that I've
tentatively started mapping.  Probably incorrectly, but I'm still figuring
out what I'm doing.  One amusing factor is
that one of the holes is on top of a scheduled monument of national
importance that "retains considerable
archaeological potential" (iron-age golf balls, presumably).  Since it was
a promontory fort, the water hazards are
spectacular.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Looks good Andy.

What's the green dot in the middle of the 13th fairway?

Thanks

Graeme

On 1 August 2018 at 19:16, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 21/07/18 08:09, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
>> ... You can be sure that pretty much everyone that maps the detailed
>> features of a golf course does so because they want to see it on the map.
>>
>
> As an aside, if anyone's looking for a style that does render golf
> features have a look at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/m
> aps/map/map.html#zoom=17=53.1345=-1.29653 .  The style's
> available for use elsewhere if anyone wants it; follow the links at the top
> of the page.  I'm sure there are other styles as well.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> ___
> 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] Golf tag combinations

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/07/18 08:09, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
... You can be sure that pretty much everyone that maps the detailed 
features of a golf course does so because they want to see it on the map.


As an aside, if anyone's looking for a style that does render golf 
features have a look at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17=53.1345=-1.29653 
.  The style's available for use elsewhere if anyone wants it; follow 
the links at the top of the page.  I'm sure there are other styles as well.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[osm.tagging]

> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2018 16:55
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> Subject: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations
> 
> using it that way surely is 'tagging for the render' as it is not the
> golf tag that is rendered.

Correct. And given that osm-carto just closed the "render golf tags" issue with 
the comment "won't do", that's not going to change. You can be sure that pretty 
much everyone that maps the detailed features of a golf course does so because 
they want to see it on the map. And they are going to add whatever tags it 
takes to make that happen.



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

[Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Warin]

Yet more golf... sigh.


Many of the golf tags (golf=green, tee, fairway) are combined with 
landuse=grass.


And other golf tags (water_hazard as an example) use the key natural.

To may way of thinking these should use the surface tag e.g. 
surface=grass, that clearly shows that the surface is secondary to the 
golf feature.


While using the landuse/natural tags may get the 'golf tag' rendered,

using it that way surely is 'tagging for the render' as it is not the 
golf tag that is rendered.





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