Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
pmailkeey wrote: johnw wrote: Forest=natural ? isn’t that natural=wood? I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest! landuse=forest and natural=wood are a poor example for historical reasons, when some thought that natural=wood together with landuse=forest was redundant, when it's not: an area used for forestry can be without tree cover (after a full chop it takes anything from years to decades before the newly planted trees look and function like a wood/forest, yet the usage of the land is still growing wood for timber). That's why the keys of the tags are different, so that one can tag both/all of them. We can live with the tags as they are used and documented now, but they shouldn't be used as a good example for future tagging. There are no man made trees in the forest, they all grow naturally. In osm a single way or node can be different things to different consumers. If one is interested in the usage of the land, they look at the landuse key, if they're interested in what natural features occupy the area, they look at the natural key; sometimes there's an implied, mostly undocumented relation between the two and sometimes the other key is omitted. There can not be a strict choice between is this one or the other, but mappers can describe only those aspects they see and care about. Data consumers, interested in something which they care about, can consider the probabilities of other related tags implying yet unstated features: for example, many places of worship already entered in osm coincide with the buildings they occupy, but people have only tagged amenity=place_of_worship. Given a pile of stones or pieces of timber stuck together, only human interpretation makes it a building, but we also give those piles other meanings; pub, shop, address, ruins. Just tag all and every meaning that make sense for that way or node. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
Sent from my iPhone On May 29, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 3:54, John Willis napisał(a): Currently, building=industrial +landuse=industrial has usurped man_made=works completely. I think of building=industrial like a building=church - it's just a form, we need some way to describe the function, just like we do with amenity=place_of_worship. We may use man_made=works to indicate that it's not a loft (apartment) or the office for example, like in some old industrial buildings. I always imagined we tag as it exists - it would be building=apartments then. I omagine there is a lot of renovation to turn a industrial warehouse into apartments. It certainly wouldn't sit on landuse=industrial except in rare on-site dormitory style situations. The basic pair of landuse+building Landuse=industrial+building=industrial Would change to Landuse=residential+building=apartments. I know there is a way to tag what the building as to what it was initially used for - but i don't think that is the proper way (afaik). Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 29 May 2015 at 12:27, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 29, 2015, at 7:35 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: There are no man made trees in the forest, they all grow naturally. Man can plant a natural tree - or it could self-seed. In osm there is a distinction between cultivated and constructed. We already do this will all other cultivated ground - and including forests into man_made does not follow existing tags that make more sense. A farm field and a planted cedar forest are both land cleared, altered, and prepared to grow a crop, Landuse=farm_land crop=sheep. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On May 29, 2015, at 7:35 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: There are no man made trees in the forest, they all grow naturally. Man can plant a natural tree - or it could self-seed. In osm there is a distinction between cultivated and constructed. We already do this will all other cultivated ground - and including forests into man_made does not follow existing tags that make more sense. A farm field and a planted cedar forest are both land cleared, altered, and prepared to grow a crop, tended to throughout their growth cycle, and then the crop is harvested and eventually reseeded (usually), but neither are man-made structures like a dam or a bridge - otherwise man_made would be the most prevalent tag on the map - as we have altered most of the flat arable land on Earth. Man_made seems to be the catch-all for non-amenity non-building structures that are commonly found where people are. Managed Forests, farmland, Gardens, parks, and other prepared places are cultivations for different purposes - food, lumber, flowers, leisure - but are not a building nor structure. You can say the land is altered for a purpose (Landuse), but a group of plants is not a non-building structure. Putting forests in man_made makes it the odd man out. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 29 May 2015 at 03:06, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 28, 2015, at 6:22 PM, AYTOUN RALPH ralph.ayt...@ntlworld.com wrote: And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the whole range of educational facilities. using landuse=school excludes universities, colleges, etc and you would then need other tags landuse=university and landuse=college, which then makes the landuse tagging specific instead of general. If we look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse the first sentence is correct Mainly used for describe the *primary use* of land by humans. so the hierarchical approach should then be something like landuse=agriculture... agriculture would then be sub categorised with farmland (worked land for crops), orchard (trees planted for their fruits), vineyard, pasture, etc. landuse=residential (could be divided into urban and rural which have totally different infrastructures) landuse=commercial landuse=industrial landuse=educational landuse=civic landuse=transport instead of the myriad of specifics that we now have like landuse=peat_cutting and landuse=salt_pondthese are all sub categories of the primary use of the land. I know this has diverted from the main topic here but I wanted to point out the overall usage to highlight how my suggestion fits into the overall picture. +1 There are advantages to certain separations (to make it easier on renders), but there are so many very specific land land uses, while whole categories don't have a single tag. A hierarchical system has room to accept new tags while keeping everyone on the same level of importance. The downside is when one group or culture sees a whole category in a different way - a primary road in Japan has a completely different meaning than the rest of OSM, for example. But I prefer the hierarchical system - a flat tag system has good points, but it's so hard to document and learn, and probably to keep renderer a up to date - as a minor change requires a whole new tag, instead of a new sub-tag value. I'm not aware renderers rely entirely on the key but use the value too - so highway=dual_carriageway wouldn't actually get rendered. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 29 May 2015 at 03:27, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 29, 2015, at 11:02 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: And that ties in nicely with my thoughts of removing the words and generating tags and values by symbols ! Mapping by emoji! Just put a hot dog symbol in the hot-dog stand! ^_^ Absolutely, yay :)) For getting data into the database from novice mappers - that might not be a bad idea - however the text description that would invariably be needed to explain the icons would lead to the same thing. SCREAM - the whole point is to get rid of language-dependent text !!! So we have a house shape for houses - and if that just happens to look like an igloo, then probably it is ! Oh what fun :) - so for teepees, they'd be the same icon as a camp_site but in building colour rather than 'blue'. And as long as there are very rigid definitions in the tags - then the icons won't fit the ground truth except in the countries of the people who created the tags. Which is true currently - as I find examples that are completely untaggable in the current system because of the insistence on a single or primary tag. Case in point: Video rental shops in Japan also rent music CDs and video games (and sometimes books/manga too). They also are a bookstore. And stationary and collectables shop. This media, goods, and rental shop (as they say on the outside) is a very common store type - there are many *chains* that offer this combination, equating to several thousand stores - but currently there is absolutely no tagging value to convey this properly. It is not primarily a rental shop with a few magazines, nor a stationary shop with a few books or DVDs. It is its own beast. We have a bakery - one wall has shelves containing general food items - canned veg, milk etc. but so limited as to not be convenience stores. Icon just needs the option of additional + sign - to indicate they offer other stuff on top of primary sales. Tsutaya, Geo, FamilyBook, and others are all big chains that do this. It is simply not a combination that is common in other parts of the world (AFAIK). And without some more hierarchy to handle new and multiple values, it will be impossible to tag, even with emoji. Any rule to limit to just one icon ? vehicle filling stations: black pump, green pump, red pump, gas tank. coiled air hose, water tap. Default filling station icon - hover over it and all the others appear ? -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 29.05.2015 3:54, John Willis napisał(a): Currently, building=industrial +landuse=industrial has usurped man_made=works completely. I think of building=industrial like a building=church - it's just a form, we need some way to describe the function, just like we do with amenity=place_of_worship. We may use man_made=works to indicate that it's not a loft (apartment) or the office for example, like in some old industrial buildings. -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 29 May 2015 at 07:36, Lauri Kytömaa lkyto...@gmail.com wrote: pmailkeey wrote: johnw wrote: Forest=natural ? isn’t that natural=wood? I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest! landuse=forest and natural=wood are a poor example for historical reasons, when some thought that natural=wood together with landuse=forest was redundant, when it's not: an area used for forestry can be without tree cover (after a full chop it takes anything from years to decades before the newly planted trees look and function like a wood/forest, yet the usage of the land is still growing wood for timber). That's why the keys of the tags are different, so that one can tag both/all of them. We can live with the tags as they are used and documented now, but they shouldn't be used as a good example for future tagging. There are no man made trees in the forest, they all grow naturally. Man can plant a natural tree - or it could self-seed. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On May 29, 2015, at 11:02 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: And that ties in nicely with my thoughts of removing the words and generating tags and values by symbols ! Mapping by emoji! Just put a hot dog symbol in the hot-dog stand! ^_^ For getting data into the database from novice mappers - that might not be a bad idea - however the text description that would invariably be needed to explain the icons would lead to the same thing. And as long as there are very rigid definitions in the tags - then the icons won't fit the ground truth except in the countries of the people who created the tags. Which is true currently - as I find examples that are completely untaggable in the current system because of the insistence on a single or primary tag. Case in point: Video rental shops in Japan also rent music CDs and video games (and sometimes books/manga too). They also are a bookstore. And stationary and collectables shop. This media, goods, and rental shop (as they say on the outside) is a very common store type - there are many *chains* that offer this combination, equating to several thousand stores - but currently there is absolutely no tagging value to convey this properly. It is not primarily a rental shop with a few magazines, nor a stationary shop with a few books or DVDs. It is its own beast. Tsutaya, Geo, FamilyBook, and others are all big chains that do this. It is simply not a combination that is common in other parts of the world (AFAIK). And without some more hierarchy to handle new and multiple values, it will be impossible to tag, even with emoji. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On May 28, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: while man_made covers technical structures and facilities (like factories, chimneys, flagpoles, lighthouses, silos, ...). If there is one big change I would like to make it would be to greatly reduce the scope of man_made=works. Most factories are buildings, So building=industrial (and so on for the office, etc) And landuse=industrial for the area the factory sits on. For the giant gas refineries which are a giant tangle of pipes and tubes and everything taking up huge amount of space without a specific building, man_made=works seems appropriate. Currently, building=industrial +landuse=industrial has usurped man_made=works completely. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On May 28, 2015, at 6:22 PM, AYTOUN RALPH ralph.ayt...@ntlworld.com wrote: And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the whole range of educational facilities. using landuse=school excludes universities, colleges, etc and you would then need other tags landuse=university and landuse=college, which then makes the landuse tagging specific instead of general. If we look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse the first sentence is correct Mainly used for describe the primary use of land by humans. so the hierarchical approach should then be something like landuse=agriculture... agriculture would then be sub categorised with farmland (worked land for crops), orchard (trees planted for their fruits), vineyard, pasture, etc. landuse=residential (could be divided into urban and rural which have totally different infrastructures) landuse=commercial landuse=industrial landuse=educational landuse=civic landuse=transport instead of the myriad of specifics that we now have like landuse=peat_cutting and landuse=salt_pondthese are all sub categories of the primary use of the land. I know this has diverted from the main topic here but I wanted to point out the overall usage to highlight how my suggestion fits into the overall picture. +1 There are advantages to certain separations (to make it easier on renders), but there are so many very specific land land uses, while whole categories don't have a single tag. A hierarchical system has room to accept new tags while keeping everyone on the same level of importance. The downside is when one group or culture sees a whole category in a different way - a primary road in Japan has a completely different meaning than the rest of OSM, for example. But I prefer the hierarchical system - a flat tag system has good points, but it's so hard to document and learn, and probably to keep renderer a up to date - as a minor change requires a whole new tag, instead of a new sub-tag value. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 29 May 2015 at 02:54, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 28, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: while man_made covers technical structures and facilities (like factories, chimneys, flagpoles, lighthouses, silos, ...). If there is one big change I would like to make it would be to greatly reduce the scope of man_made=works. Most factories are buildings, So building=industrial (and so on for the office, etc) And landuse=industrial for the area the factory sits on. For the giant gas refineries which are a giant tangle of pipes and tubes and everything taking up huge amount of space without a specific building, man_made=works seems appropriate. Currently, building=industrial +landuse=industrial has usurped man_made=works completely. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I'm not sure a refinery would even be a 'works'. 'Industrial' seems fine to me. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 28 May 2015 at 07:28, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: Thanks for the post, John. Thanks for reading ^^ How about: Forest=natural ? isn’t that natural=wood? I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest! or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. A forest is a man-altered area, so i believe “forest” already implies man-used. But it is not man_made (as a building is), as the forest is not a non-building structure. Is Amazon rain forest man-affected? landuse=school is, to the map, the same as area=school which is the same as Area is the name for a type of unit in the database (node, way, area) so that sounds confusing. so how about using land=school for your example. I think your 'confusion' is my 'simplification'. We're talking about an area - because that's what we're talking about and to mark that area, we use the 'area' function - no matter the eventual purpose of that area. school or perhaps school=primary school=secondary school=music When I have a facility which encompasses multiple buildings with different purposes (a music school , a computer school, a sports facility, etc) and that entire facility is considered a “school” with a singular name (FooBar university), there has to be some kind of *generic purpose-based tag* for the area. Area=school or Area=University. that is how I see landuse=* . You can reimagine it to have other names, or other tagging styles, but eventually you will lead yourself to purpose=education because if you go much narrower, the world is so varied that the 6 categories you need don’t quite line up with the 6 I need, and the 12 someone else needs - so to have a single catch all is much more flexible. Maybe we can agree on some age splits (Pre K-12 , higher) but if you start going deeper than that - what about combined primary-secondary? what about combined secondary-high? What about a facility that does K-12 all on the same campus? making 35 different tags is not helpful to get taggers tagging and renderers rendering. my fictional tag example landuse=school [currently amenity=school] school=k-12 k-12=secondary;high religion=buddhist denomination=honen Name=FooBar Buddhist Junior Senior High School secondary=3 high_school=3 vs land=honen_buddhist_secondary_high_school This basic hierarchical approach makes it easy to support new users (unless everything is abstracted away, which it is totally not) and Major things to be supported by renderers (which are really really conservative) so we get the best of all worlds for a large amount of things that can fit easily into some big catch-all category, and still have it refined by the subtags for further use . I've no issue with subtags - the main issue is the top-level tag lacking useful information. I've suggested area= instead of amenity= giving area=school, area=building - but then as an area is drawn, the name 'area' becomes unnecessary. school=grounds school=building or building=school grounds=school is perhaps better. The big point is what does 'landuse' (or 'natural') tell us that's new information landuse can be read as “purpose” Natural can be read as “existing in the world with little to no alteration by man. But how valuable is that to the map-reader ? ? bridge=natural would be a case where natural is giving information as it is not expected bridges to be natural. a natural bridge (like a rock crossing a chasm) sounds cool. Can you find a sports pitch that's not landuse ? there's no need to have landuse=sports_pitch. And to prove my point, OSM doesn't ! we have instead leisure=sports_pitch - but it's still landuse but not tagged as such. So now, it seems OSM tags landuse on its own whims, is inconsistent; is confusing I was about to say what sports_pitch isn't 'leisure' - and then thought: commercial=sports_pitch - e.g. professional football grounds A commercial sports facility would have a landuse encompassing all the pitches, parking lots, and other buildings (leisure=sports_center) that make up FooBar Sports Center. landuse=commercial (i think) name:foobar Sports Center sport=multi That sounds like a hybrid - a commercial enterprise providing leisure facilities. I could see there being a landuse=recreation or leisure, but we have chosen to define a lot of land uses by economic means (commercial, industrial, residential, agriculture, etc). This lack of completeness in landuse (there is no landuse=civic yet, I’m pushing for it) would help solve some issues, IMO. Very specific landuses (landuse=poodle_training_ground) sounds really bad to me. there are some which should have been sub-keys (like farmland+crop) but no one was looking that far ahead, such as landuse=farmland now instead of landuse=agriculture and agriculture=* would be better,
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
2015-05-28 8:28 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: How about: Forest=natural ? isn’t that natural=wood? or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. A forest is a man-altered area, so i believe “forest” already implies man-used. But it is not man_made (as a building is), as the forest is not a non-building structure. I believe the (not so uncommon amongst OSM mappers) reading of natural as tag for everything related to nature and man_made for all kind of stuff made by mankind is not really helpful. The way these are integrated into the tagging scheme is slightly different, they both cover only a subset of the aforementioned, namely natural covers natural geographic features like beaches, swamps, bays, peaks, mountain passes, single trees, springs, brush, heath, boulders, ... with a few (more recent) exceptions like mud and sand (which actually overlap with other like beach and wetland and which are landcovers / materials / surfaces rather than features), while man_made covers technical structures and facilities (like factories, chimneys, flagpoles, lighthouses, silos, ...). Btw.: a forest can or cannot be a man altered area, typically it now is in many parts of the world and once wasn't. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On May 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: Thanks for the post, John. Thanks for reading ^^ I think the problem is the tagging method. Why does there have to be two parts to it ? beyond necessary database syntax (key=value), This is a flat vs hierarchical question. Do we have Education=school / school=elementary or just school=elemntary by itself? There is data to be gleaned from the hierarchical approach - it is an education facility. It is not a private tutoring shop. it is a member of other similar facilities in education (Junior high, High, University, etc). In some cases the more complicated method makes it easier to find what is in a category, such as a top level tag holds all the building types (building=shop) and then shop holds all the different shop types (shop=groomer). and we can then create an additional tag (groomer=poodle_groomer) if we need to add more information. And the debate rages on if it should be that or shop:groomer=poodle or similar - but that still is a hierarchy of information. building=poodle_groomer contains less information and is less easily understood by mappers and renderers. Landuse=schoolgrounds is the same as schoolgrounds. Natural=forest is the same as simply forest. key=value. so.. schoolgrounds=yes? How about: Forest=natural ? isn’t that natural=wood? or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. A forest is a man-altered area, so i believe “forest” already implies man-used. But it is not man_made (as a building is), as the forest is not a non-building structure. landuse=school is, to the map, the same as area=school which is the same as Area is the name for a type of unit in the database (node, way, area) so that sounds confusing. so how about using land=school for your example. school or perhaps school=primary school=secondary school=music When I have a facility which encompasses multiple buildings with different purposes (a music school , a computer school, a sports facility, etc) and that entire facility is considered a “school” with a singular name (FooBar university), there has to be some kind of *generic purpose-based tag* for the area. that is how I see landuse=* . You can reimagine it to have other names, or other tagging styles, but eventually you will lead yourself to purpose=education because if you go much narrower, the world is so varied that the 6 categories you need don’t quite line up with the 6 I need, and the 12 someone else needs - so to have a single catch all is much more flexible. Maybe we can agree on some age splits (Pre K-12 , higher) but if you start going deeper than that - what about combined primary-secondary? what about combined secondary-high? What about a facility that does K-12 all on the same campus? making 35 different tags is not helpful to get taggers tagging and renderers rendering. my fictional tag example landuse=school [currently amenity=school] school=k-12 k-12=secondary;high religion=buddhist denomination=honen Name=FooBar Buddhist Junior Senior High School secondary=3 high_school=3 vs land=honen_buddhist_secondary_high_school This basic hierarchical approach makes it easy to support new users (unless everything is abstracted away, which it is totally not) and Major things to be supported by renderers (which are really really conservative) so we get the best of all worlds for a large amount of things that can fit easily into some big catch-all category, and still have it refined by the subtags for further use . All the renderers need to see is “ landuse=school “ and I get my render. The rest is for completeness’ sake. imagine the values needed to support land=* in your scheme. land=* would have hundreds of unrelated types of areas all jammed together. there is no split to them for parsing or rendering. and any new value would have to be supported by updating all the renderers. I can create a new value of k-12= and nothing needs to be changed, until support for rendering the k-12 tag is supported later. The big point is what does 'landuse' (or 'natural') tell us that's new information landuse can be read as “purpose” Natural can be read as “existing in the world with little to no alteration by man. ? bridge=natural would be a case where natural is giving information as it is not expected bridges to be natural. a natural bridge (like a rock crossing a chasm) sounds cool. Can you find a sports pitch that's not landuse ? there's no need to have landuse=sports_pitch. And to prove my point, OSM doesn't ! we have instead leisure=sports_pitch - but it's still landuse but not tagged as such. So now, it seems OSM tags landuse on its own whims, is inconsistent; is confusing A commercial sports facility would have a landuse encompassing all the pitches, parking lots, and other buildings (leisure=sports_center) that make up FooBar
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the whole range of educational facilities. using landuse=school excludes universities, colleges, etc and you would then need other tags landuse=university and landuse=college, which then makes the landuse tagging specific instead of general. If we look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse the first sentence is correct Mainly used for describe the *primary use* of land by humans. so the hierarchical approach should then be something like landuse=agriculture... agriculture would then be sub categorised with farmland (worked land for crops), orchard (trees planted for their fruits), vineyard, pasture, etc. landuse=residential (could be divided into urban and rural which have totally different infrastructures) landuse=commercial landuse=industrial landuse=educational landuse=civic landuse=transport instead of the myriad of specifics that we now have like landuse=peat_cutting and landuse=salt_pondthese are all sub categories of the primary use of the land. I know this has diverted from the main topic here but I wanted to point out the overall usage to highlight how my suggestion fits into the overall picture. On 28 May 2015 at 08:52, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-28 8:28 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: How about: Forest=natural ? isn’t that natural=wood? or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. A forest is a man-altered area, so i believe “forest” already implies man-used. But it is not man_made (as a building is), as the forest is not a non-building structure. I believe the (not so uncommon amongst OSM mappers) reading of natural as tag for everything related to nature and man_made for all kind of stuff made by mankind is not really helpful. The way these are integrated into the tagging scheme is slightly different, they both cover only a subset of the aforementioned, namely natural covers natural geographic features like beaches, swamps, bays, peaks, mountain passes, single trees, springs, brush, heath, boulders, ... with a few (more recent) exceptions like mud and sand (which actually overlap with other like beach and wetland and which are landcovers / materials / surfaces rather than features), while man_made covers technical structures and facilities (like factories, chimneys, flagpoles, lighthouses, silos, ...). Btw.: a forest can or cannot be a man altered area, typically it now is in many parts of the world and once wasn't. 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] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 28.05.2015 11:22, AYTOUN RALPH napisał(a): And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the whole range of educational facilities. using landuse=school excludes universities, colleges, etc and you would then need other tags landuse=university and landuse=college, which then makes the landuse tagging specific instead of general. We have also landuse/landcover dispute (landuse=grass should be rather landcover=grass or landuse=meadow probably), so landuse is not really general - I would see it as the object category tree: area water ... land building ... landuse educational kindergarten school (- like primary school) higher/further education (- in Poland HE/FE classification is not used or known, we have only higher schools) university college ... landcover grass sand trees ... We could simply extend the current system of compulsive categorization with such schema, but I think we can do much better and avoid future problems by taking this responsibility from the mappers and letting them focus on the ground truth rather than requiring them to do some philosophical work with categories. We should care for ontology outside the tagging, because it belongs to meta- level. Using Wikidata as a helper would be rich and established source for qualifying and relations between objects and categories. This would also give us more flexibility, because with compulsive categories we're not sure if the mapper is sure that this is the right category or is just following convention from Wiki. We could also expand it much easier with new categories when needed. If we look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse [1] the first sentence is correct Mainly used for describe the PRIMARY USE of land by humans. But we may be not aware of the status. Forest is a great example - in many cases we just see the trees and don't know if they are used or not, but we're pushed to choose if it's natural=wood or landuse=forest, because there is no established area/land=trees tagging. And what about trees in the park - they're not a forest, but still we can say they're used and taken care of by man. I would prefer something really general, like for example: area=trees/land=trees/landcover=trees forest=mixed school=primary/yes (if we don't know the type) and let the category tree be curated in our Wikidata instance (or anything we consider suitable for this task). so the hierarchical approach should then be something like landuse=agriculture... agriculture would then be sub categorised with farmland (worked land for crops), orchard (trees planted for their fruits), vineyard, pasture, etc. landuse=residential (could be divided into urban and rural which have totally different infrastructures) landuse=commercial landuse=industrial landuse=educational landuse=civic landuse=transport instead of the myriad of specifics that we now have like landuse=peat_cutting and landuse=salt_pondthese are all sub categories of the primary use of the land. And the area of a driving school or a private higher school may be just: area=driving_school area=school + school=higher + owner=private because it's at the same time commercial AND educational in many cases. It's just a sketch (what about public commercial entities? and so on), but the less compulsive categorization in tagging, the better. -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: There are no categorizes in the OSM data, believing that will not be helpfull to you when you try to use OSM data. The current way of sometime using the key as an category isn't working that well. Or I might be wrong I don't write that many stylesheets, and they are the biggest consumers of our data, so take a look at how they handle it. I'm thinking more for apps/websites like taglocator, openpoimap, (although they allow to select specific shops as well) or all the people that reach out to help.openstreetmap.org and ask for all the POIs in their town. With shop=... they get a long way. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
I also forgot to mention that Mapnik also shows all shops that do not have their own icon with a dot. You cannot do that when you drop the shop-'category' regards m. On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: There are no categorizes in the OSM data, believing that will not be helpfull to you when you try to use OSM data. The current way of sometime using the key as an category isn't working that well. Or I might be wrong I don't write that many stylesheets, and they are the biggest consumers of our data, so take a look at how they handle it. I'm thinking more for apps/websites like taglocator, openpoimap, (although they allow to select specific shops as well) or all the people that reach out to help.openstreetmap.org and ask for all the POIs in their town. With shop=... they get a long way. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: amenity=pub - pub=yes shop=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes office=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes So you want to replace shop=bakery by bakery=yes, shop=butcher with butcher=yes, etc. ? This means that you cannot write a query that retrieves all shops in a town. You would need a list of things for which the value is yes. But you cannot summarize the things, because there is no category to which they belong and the list is open-ended. Don't know whether that is a good idea. Sometimes the whole category is not what you want. E.g. when you want a map of restaurants, pubs, hotels (so called Horeca in Belgium, for which there is an organization), you don't need all amenities or tourism items. Or for roads you might not want crossings, traffic signs and other stuff under highway. Dropping the top level tag makes no difference in those cases. But sometimes you want all things in a category: e.g. buildings or shops . Dropping the category might not make some problems harder to solve than just keeping them. maybe I just misunderstood what you want to change. regards m. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 18.05.2015 11:18, David Earl napisał(a): On Mon, 18 May 2015 at 00:40 pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: Unfortunately change is inevitable and it happens to Microsoft and Google customers. Yes, of course. But they go to considerable lengths to provide upward compatibility, and when they can't, they provide a migration path and controlled change. But in any case this is just a gratuitous change with heavy costs for all the software. If you have an API, and this is part of one, then changing it randomly under people's feet so it breaks their products is a sure fire way of driving all but the most dedicated and masochistic customers away. I don't remember anybody talking about randomly changing anything! Quite the reverse - we try to make system more consistent and clear. I, for one, care a lot for as smooth transition as possible. If we make the change like: amenity=pub - pub=yes shop=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes office=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes you can still make the translation for legacy services out there: pub=yes - amenity=pub travel_agent=yes - shop=travel_agent (or office=travel_agent) Note that while the second case is not a 1:1 mapping, the whole point of transition was exactly dropping the information we can't be sure. More radical way is to just choose preferable legacy category, but we can make it less radical simply preserving some of the old cruft: shop=travel_agent - travel_agent=shop office=travel_agent - travel_agent=office It would still be a clear improvement, because from now on we would tag only travel_agent=yes, so at least new contributions are free of legacy bloat. -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: amenity=pub - pub=yes shop=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes office=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes So you want to replace shop=bakery by bakery=yes, shop=butcher with butcher=yes, etc. ? This means that you cannot write a query that retrieves all shops in a town. You would need a list of things for which the value is yes. But you cannot summarize the things, because there is no category to which they belong and the list is open-ended. Don't know whether that is a good idea. There are no categorizes in the OSM data, believing that will not be helpfull to you when you try to use OSM data. The current way of sometime using the key as an category isn't working that well. Or I might be wrong I don't write that many stylesheets, and they are the biggest consumers of our data, so take a look at how they handle it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
AYTOUN RALPH wrote: OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating their own detailed layer of OSM such as the Cycle Map Where only now starting to realise and starting to see means 2007. http://blog.gravitystorm.co.uk/2007/07/31/openstreetmap-cycle-map/ Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removal-of-amenity-from-OSM-tagging-tp5844603p5844990.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On Mon, 18 May 2015 at 00:40 pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: Unfortunately change is inevitable and it happens to Microsoft and Google customers. Yes, of course. But they go to considerable lengths to provide upward compatibility, and when they can't, they provide a migration path and controlled change. But in any case this is just a gratuitous change with heavy costs for all the software. If you have an API, and this is part of one, then changing it randomly under people's feet so it breaks their products is a sure fire way of driving all but the most dedicated and masochistic customers away. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
My apologies for that inaccuracy Richard On 18 May 2015 at 10:43, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: AYTOUN RALPH wrote: OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating their own detailed layer of OSM such as the Cycle Map Where only now starting to realise and starting to see means 2007. http://blog.gravitystorm.co.uk/2007/07/31/openstreetmap-cycle-map/ Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removal-of-amenity-from-OSM-tagging-tp5844603p5844990.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
Just exactly how can a data consumer be “abstracted from our tags”? Where in a typical rendering process could this abstraction be placed where it would be automatic and transparent to the people maintaining the data consumers? For example, I generate PDF/paper trail maps for an organization using OSM. My scripts download the extract from geofabrik that includes our area of interest and makes the maps from that. Unless geofabrik translates (abstracts) the tags, an unlikely and undesirable thing for them to do, then I will need to make changes in my scripts to handle any changes in tagging that my organization cares about. Maybe it would be in the stage where we load a database with object information, maybe it would be in the rendering stage or maybe in both areas. But I will have to make changes to get my map generation working again. I strongly suspect that many other data consumer maintainers would have the same issue. —Tod On May 17, 2015, at 6:28 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with this, but I think consumers should be abstrated from our tags too. It shouldn't be impossible to change the meaning of a tag. But untill such abstraction is made, no major changes should be made. Janko ned, 17. svi 2015. 15:14 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com je napisao: It shouldn't matter what the tags are called, this is like assembly code, only the geeks should need to ever see them. This really ought to be abstracted in the editors, as indeed it is in ID. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 17 May 2015 at 14:12, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: This is no way to treat consumers of map data. If you make major changes like this, anyone using the map has to scramble to change their rendering code. If there's no semblance of upward compatibility, people will lose interest in OSM because it is just too hard to maintain, and if there is any kind of automation involved, suddenly people's online apps stop working and it becomes an emergency. It shouldn't matter what the tags are called, this is like assembly code, only the geeks should need to ever see them. This really ought to be abstracted in the editors, as indeed it is in ID. Please drop this suggestion, it is not helpful. It's an unprofessional way to treat customers. David Unfortunately change is inevitable and it happens to Microsoft and Google customers. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
This is no way to treat consumers of map data. If you make major changes like this, anyone using the map has to scramble to change their rendering code. If there's no semblance of upward compatibility, people will lose interest in OSM because it is just too hard to maintain, and if there is any kind of automation involved, suddenly people's online apps stop working and it becomes an emergency. It shouldn't matter what the tags are called, this is like assembly code, only the geeks should need to ever see them. This really ought to be abstracted in the editors, as indeed it is in ID. Please drop this suggestion, it is not helpful. It's an unprofessional way to treat customers. David On Sun, 17 May 2015 at 00:18 AYTOUN RALPH ralph.ayt...@ntlworld.com wrote: I believe that the discussion regarding amenity v landuse should consider that where amenity designates the actual use of the area as in amenity=school, landuse designates the general use of the land... in the case of the school it should be landuse=education, the same as you get landuse=residential, landuse=farmland, landuse=commercial. In normal cartography there would be different maps designed to depict a specific theme, we called them Thematic Maps. A map depicting landuse would concentrate on the general use of that land pocket, at larger scales the landuse would be more specific as to the categories of landuse used. With OpenStreetMap everything is bunged together on a single map and that really confuses a lot of people into believing that you can separate out the tagging into something that fits. You cannot without restricting the use of the map. Some people using the map will be interested in the landuse, others may be more interested in the amenities. They are two separate and independent themes. We do not at this stage have the zoom levels organised to show certain thematics at each level nor do we have them separated into separate layers that can be switched on or off depending on what you want on the map. To get rid of one discriminates against those who have a requirement for that type of information. OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating their own detailed layer of OSM such as the Cycle Map, Transport Map and separate maps such as OpenSeaMap. Once this idea has spread to other specifics then the tagging can be designed specifically for the requirements of those layers and the argument for landuse v amenity will be redundant So what the OSM community needs is to reconcile their own specific ideas with the requirements of others and reach a way of depicting their own preferences without compromising the preferences of others. Not by getting rid of a whole level of tags just because you do not understand them in context with what your interests are. Here is hoping we can all reach an amicable agreement and concentrate on the mapping. Regards to all Ralph On 16 May 2015 at 14:29, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get landuse=building even. Uhhh. *What?* This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor segregated for a specific use. I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a reason. Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) That would be a great oceanuse tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster farm). I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school. That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
I agree with this, but I think consumers should be abstrated from our tags too. It shouldn't be impossible to change the meaning of a tag. But untill such abstraction is made, no major changes should be made. Janko ned, 17. svi 2015. 15:14 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com je napisao: It shouldn't matter what the tags are called, this is like assembly code, only the geeks should need to ever see them. This really ought to be abstracted in the editors, as indeed it is in ID. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get landuse=building even. Uhhh. *What?* This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor segregated for a specific use. I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a reason. Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) That would be a great oceanuse tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster farm). I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school. That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to be a school ground… and has an *area easily defined*… as a school… should be “*landuse* =school” The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as amenities IMO - or should we have a tny little 30x30cm squares marked as landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher? It’s just as asinine as landuse=glacier. Which leads us to this statement: So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does. ?? when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks spilled across the map. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087 Even without naming, and using only a single landuse across multiple areas, gives a much clearer idea of what is there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950 Landuse ties them together int he way we already spatially identify them - this is a “school” this is an “apartment complex”… This is a “university” - The building+landuse for individual facilities gives you so much more together than just one by itself. The land and non-building amenities contained within the landuse are as important as the building. And… the name=* belongs to the landuse for all larger facilities. A big school (or mall or business complex) with many named buildings, pools, parking, seating, pitches, walkways, and wahatnot… is currently amenity=school + name=FooBar School. (I feel it should be landuse=school). same as landuse=retail name=FooBar OutDoor Mall. Or landuse=industrial name=FooBar Works. No single building is actually named the name of the facility - and often is named something else! - so the name=* for the facility doesn’t belong to it. Even tiny schools. My school has two buildings. Both have the same number of students. Which is named for the school? Neither. The ground has the name - out on the wall. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257 The name goes on the landuse, which includes the school’s parking, bike racks, hedges, walkways, water tanks, tress, and stairways. The wall around our perimeter is an an easily mapped and easily defined area boundary. Everything inside is landuse=school - as all of those amenities not only belong to the school, but support the operation of the school. Are the parking lots around a stadium not part of the stadium? Are the lawns, walkways, quads, and roadways not part of a business complex? What about a hospital with multiple buildings? http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=16/36.3295/139.1009 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40860/139.03317 Here - there are no buildings (as there are none) - but just
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: landuse=golf_course leisure+golf_course man_made=golf_course Surely all three of these are 'obvious' when referring to a golf course ? you can think of landuse as a more or less fixed list, see here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landuse#values I would see a limit at 5000 uses, everything above is well introduced, especially above 50/100K which are the basic classes you should be familiar with. golf_course is not on the first pages leisure is indeed the tag for sport locations, so obviously yes man_made is more about infrastructure, technical, industrial stuff, structures, ... You can get an idea here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/man_made#values There surely is some logical structure in the current osm tagging system and yes, you either look up the tags or learn them, or you will have to use presets ;-) Any system will not be obvious. Yes, there are also some exceptions and oddities in the system I would like to get rid of like you do, but it's not the amenity key or the k/v structure for tags. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 16 May 2015 at 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: Forest=natural ? or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit presumptuous ;-) how about landcover=trees? If the trees are too far apart, they won't quite cover ! Makes me think - why do we have an icon for a tree that's not used in woods and forests ? Wouldn't it be good if it was used and density=*% determines the spacings of the tree symbols sparse: 5:1 (space:tree) moderate: 2:1 Dense 1:1 (abutting trees) Very dense 1:2 - i.e. the trees overlap! -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: Forest=natural ? or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit presumptuous ;-) how about landcover=trees? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
I use natural=tree for tagging free standing trees that have some special significance: they are separate from other trees, larger than other trees, or otherwise prominent in the landscape. On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 9:42 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: On 16 May 2015 at 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: Forest=natural ? or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest]. or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit presumptuous ;-) how about landcover=trees? If the trees are too far apart, they won't quite cover ! Makes me think - why do we have an icon for a tree that's not used in woods and forests ? Wouldn't it be good if it was used and density=*% determines the spacings of the tree symbols sparse: 5:1 (space:tree) moderate: 2:1 Dense 1:1 (abutting trees) Very dense 1:2 - i.e. the trees overlap! -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 15.05.2015 14:52, Daniel Koć napisał(a): And note, that it's hard for us, advanced mappers! But I guess this project has a long tail - that means advanced users are just a tiny (even if important) part of community. So most of the work is done by casual mappers. They have iD as a tool and that's great, but if My long tail intuition are now supported by a scientific study called Characterizing the Heterogeneity of the OpenStreetMap Data and Community, and we know even how much advanced users are there! The abstract says: All three aspects (users, elements, and contributions) demonstrate striking power laws or heavy-tailed distributions. The heavy-tailed distributions imply that there are far more small elements than large ones, far more inactive users than active ones, and far more lightly edited elements than heavy-edited ones. Furthermore, about 500 users in the core group of the OSM are highly networked in terms of collaboration. [ http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/4/2/535 ] So, we should really take care of casual mappers! -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 15.05.2015 19:35, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): yes, it is planned to have a real area datatype, sooner or later. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas [1] Great, that'd be even better! However I guess this technical step will be a simple transition and we may still make area=* first class citizen in the meantime. Do you have any idea when could it be done (or any other details regarding this) or is it only on our wishlist and the truth is nobody knows? -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 16.05.2015 18:41, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): There surely is some logical structure in the current osm tagging system and yes, you either look up the tags or learn them, or you will have to use presets ;-) Presets are good! But I think their primary purpose is for thing you have no chance to remember exactly, like number of steps, surface types and so on. But sooner or later the presets are not enough and you hit the wall. Any system will not be obvious. Yes, there are also some exceptions and oddities in the system I would like to get rid of like you do, but it's not the amenity key or the k/v structure for tags. It sounds to me like an excuse to hold the inefficient, fixed system you have to remember instead of dynamic system allowing mappers do the mapping with less doubts. Nothing is perfect, but we can do better. Why not area=golf_course (if it's an area) or just golf_course(=yes if you need to still use k/v structure)? Is it harder to remember? No, it's easier! Does it create fundamental questions about what type it really belongs to? Not for the mapper. Do we loose categorization? No! We can just have more flexible category tree on wiki and change it or simply expand if needed. Wikipedia do this and it's working. There's no need to have fixed set of overlapping definitions in the phone book, but it doesn't mean the only alternative is complete chaos! -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
I believe that the discussion regarding amenity v landuse should consider that where amenity designates the actual use of the area as in amenity=school, landuse designates the general use of the land... in the case of the school it should be landuse=education, the same as you get landuse=residential, landuse=farmland, landuse=commercial. In normal cartography there would be different maps designed to depict a specific theme, we called them Thematic Maps. A map depicting landuse would concentrate on the general use of that land pocket, at larger scales the landuse would be more specific as to the categories of landuse used. With OpenStreetMap everything is bunged together on a single map and that really confuses a lot of people into believing that you can separate out the tagging into something that fits. You cannot without restricting the use of the map. Some people using the map will be interested in the landuse, others may be more interested in the amenities. They are two separate and independent themes. We do not at this stage have the zoom levels organised to show certain thematics at each level nor do we have them separated into separate layers that can be switched on or off depending on what you want on the map. To get rid of one discriminates against those who have a requirement for that type of information. OSM is only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating their own detailed layer of OSM such as the Cycle Map, Transport Map and separate maps such as OpenSeaMap. Once this idea has spread to other specifics then the tagging can be designed specifically for the requirements of those layers and the argument for landuse v amenity will be redundant So what the OSM community needs is to reconcile their own specific ideas with the requirements of others and reach a way of depicting their own preferences without compromising the preferences of others. Not by getting rid of a whole level of tags just because you do not understand them in context with what your interests are. Here is hoping we can all reach an amicable agreement and concentrate on the mapping. Regards to all Ralph On 16 May 2015 at 14:29, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get landuse=building even. Uhhh. *What?* This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor segregated for a specific use. I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a reason. Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) That would be a great oceanuse tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster farm). I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school. That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to be a school ground… and has an *area easily defined*… as a school… should be “*landuse* =school” The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as amenities IMO - or should we have a tny little 30x30cm squares marked as landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher? It’s just as asinine as landuse=glacier. Which leads us to this statement: So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does. ?? when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks spilled across the map.
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. to me a pub is a business, sells food and drinks and is typically in a building (there might be also pubs in tents or on ships, etc.) I feel its pointless to question the sense of the amenity namespace / key. It's too late. Of course we could use another structure for these tags and get rid of some problems and get some different problems, but a transition seems too revolutionary, too much effort for likely not enough gain... Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
The real question is: At what scale is the Amenity an amenity of something? This variable answer is the source of he confusion. At the beginning, it was the amenity of the town. Amenity=school and amenity=hospital is a great example. But tagging complexity quickly grew in some objects (and not others), so town amenities still exist, but newer schemes to tag other town level objects (like shops) are under different tags. This creates confusion. Those amenities got a top level tag to refine them, but they don't control the object's definition (ie school=university) Then newer amenity tags described location level information (like a building's amenities). But again, other tagging schemes were made for more complex items at that level, so some are in amenity and some aren't. Now we're tagging sub-location level tags - sidewalks and trees and covers and clocks and doors - and the amenity tag again has a few amenities (I think) at this level as well, and other tag schemes that have more specified data (like clock=*), but are still tied to amenity. The trick is to murder the town level amenity tags, letting the amenity tag to focus (at least) location level amenities, if not smaller. Amenity=school should be landuse=school, for example. This refocus would help people understand that we are talking about location level amenities (at least), not town level ones (as there is no amenity=shop) This should help change the feeling that everything should be an amenity tag with a subtag to sort out its details. Amenity= was probably a great solution at first, but it's too scattershot now. Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
Am 15.05.2015 um 12:17 schrieb p...@trigpoint.me.uk: It is way more than a shop, probably the best example of an amenity there is. completely agree ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On Fri May 15 10:41:00 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. True, but a pub is much more than a business . It is as much a community centre as a business, the customers are an essential part of the formula. It is one of the P's that make a village a viable community, Post Office, Primary School and Pub. Pubs rely upon customer commitment and participation for darts, dominoes teams, to collect glasses, take a turn behind the bar.when its busy, to greet and pass time with strangers who come in. It is way more than a shop, probably the best example of an amenity there is. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
+1 Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: Friday, 15 May 2015 10:41 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. to me a pub is a business, sells food and drinks and is typically in a building (there might be also pubs in tents or on ships, etc.) I feel its pointless to question the sense of the amenity namespace / key. It's too late. Of course we could use another structure for these tags and get rid of some problems and get some different problems, but a transition seems too revolutionary, too much effort for likely not enough gain... Cheers, Martin___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
My concern is that OSM is/should be open to all. For it to succeed at that, it needs to be easily understood by all - but even I would struggle to define 'amenity' - it's not a familiar word to most people and it's a problem osm-wide with nomenclature like 'node' for point and 'way' for line - which I have 98% doubts about it even being correct. On 15 May 2015 at 10:48, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: Amenity=school should be landuse=school, for example. That shows another fine example of a misunderstanding of the hub of the problem. Other than vertical areas, on the Earth and map, any area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get landuse=building even. So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does. Consider asking someone to: Draw a building Draw an amenity Draw a landuse Only the first example would produce satisfactory results (probably ending up as a house rather than an office block or a hospital). My conclusion is that landuse = area and area = landuse. Area is simpler to understand - I can Draw an area - if such a category is really necessary - after all, the fact an area is drawn confirms it's an area without the need to tag it as such (landuse/area). -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote: amenity=pub is really just pub(=yes) etc. That is a better example .. to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. As are restaurants, petrol stations etc. No they're not. They are activities (usually) operated inside a building. What about large buildings with a pub and some shops on their ground floor? None of those shops nor the pub is a building. I agree with pub=yes, however. This would help a lot with the eternal question is this a pub, a cafe or a restaurant? No problem, it's all of them: pub=yes, cafe=yes, restaurant=yes. Does it have rooms too? hotel=yes. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 15.05.2015 13:02, pmailkeey . napisał(a): My concern is that OSM is/should be open to all. For it to succeed at that, it needs to be easily understood by all - but even I would +1 - I couldn't agree more! 10+ years of just adding more types of objects makes a lot of unneeded cruft, because we try to fit everything in the initial scheme of things (which is too narrow and rigid now). If it's just adding more details, we succeeded (in general), but when the problem is finding the right categorization, we tend to fail. And note, that it's hard for us, advanced mappers! But I guess this project has a long tail - that means advanced users are just a tiny (even if important) part of community. So most of the work is done by casual mappers. They have iD as a tool and that's great, but if something is more complicated than just adding very typical objects, they probably got lost with Wiki subtleties, overlapping definitions and language/cultural differences. We need as low common denominators as possible to be useful for those casual users. Otherwise we will loose the opportunities (available data not entered, users distracted) or we will gain random errors (data entered anyway just to fit in our scheme or - even worse - for rendering). It is never too late to change the project until the last user is gone or the project have stalled (it's quite the reverse in OSM today =} ). It can be hard, but for me general tagging schemes cleaning/simplifying has great advantages for casual (easy tagging the ground truth) and advanced users as well (lightweight, more flexible categories, tag schemes become manageable again, Wiki is not overloaded with inconclusive voting cases, because the rules are more flexible and clear). struggle to define 'amenity' - it's not a familiar word to most people and it's a problem osm-wide with nomenclature like 'node' for point and 'way' for line - which I have 98% doubts about it even being correct. Speaking of language/cultural differences: even I don't know how to tag higher schools in Poland - as universities or colleges maybe - because further/continuing education idea is simply not used here, but we have no common university, college etc tag. My conclusion is that landuse = area and area = landuse. Area is simpler to understand - I can Draw an area - if such a category is really necessary - after all, the fact an area is drawn confirms it's an area without the need to tag it as such (landuse/area). Landuse is probably always the area (we just may not know the borders and make it a node for a closer examination later), but not all areas are landuse. =} It can be landcover as well - you don't know what's the use, but you can see what is on the ground (for example grass in the park: you know what is the use of park, but grass here has no clear meaning). Also some people argue that landuse=water makes no sense and I think they are right. =} I think area tag is the most useful and generic term for all these objects and should be used this way. The practical implementation is not set in stone, it can be for example: 1. area=landuse+landuse=park 2. area:landuse=park 3. area=water+water=pond 4. area=pond 5. pond=yes I strongly prefer shorter ones, with no encapsulated categories (since we may want to change it later if needed - see the categories on Wikipedia), but anything is better than current state of confusion. -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 15.05.2015 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): either one of the available tags fit for your purpose or you will have to invent a new tag, that's how OSM works. The situation would be Sure, I know! =} However when you have only few fixed categories, it's much harder to invent a proper one - coherent with the rest (also language-wise) and not overlapping with other definitions. That can be less of a problem if you have just a dozen of tags, but when there is more of them, lack of a clear system will hit you more and more. different for you if we had a common tag for any kind of higher education, but it seems that other mappers have thought this approach would be less useful for them (or we would already have this tag). I don't think it's simply if we don't have it, we don't need it, because if we need it, we would have it already. =} You probably underestimate the power of inertia and good enough system. In theory we encourage any tags you like approach, while in practice we tend to treat Wiki as the highest truth to deal with scattered cases and we render only a small subset even of already approved tags. Most casual users are afraid and don't know the system, so they will just choose existing tags no matter what, and if there are no clear guidelines/categories to create new tags AND they need to put a lot of work (like writing the proposal, subscribing to the list, discussing, then voting) AND there is no chance to see it work in the short time, they will abstain or tag for existing tags or renderer. There should be easier way of creating (defining and populating in our ecosystem) new tag schemes within more useful category tree. It's more reachable goal than trying to change casual users - exactly because they are not involved too deep and most of them never will. IMHO in general we have to deal with what is there, yes, we can try to make some changes to make the system more consistent or complete, but if you come and want to change everything there will naturally be some reluctance. This is ever more true with established usage of a tag. If Of course. But I think we well need to change it anyway and it's better now than when we grow much more and the problem will get even bigger. However real crisis may be exactly the point where any big change is really possible - I can only make the community aware of it and start discussion early enough to not make it too big. you still want to try, please use a namespace/ keys that are not yet in use, so to avoid conflicts with other mappers and to allow for parallel tagging during transition (also look at the tags path and public_transport which are examples for previous attempts to redesign parts of the tagging scheme) I see the area=* namespace as the most interesting and realistic candidate, because it's really basic word/object, and while it may look like a highly conflicting one (almost 700k uses already! - http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area), in reality it's underused, because 99,39% of values are just yes/no and there's no need to touch them. Other popular namespaces area:highway=* and area:size:ha=* are just a different notation (area=highway + highway=*, the second one is harder to translate, but not that important) and as I said: which notation will prevail is a secondary problem. So all the needed elements are there. What we need is just a mental shift first (area=* may be a primary tag, not just an optional feature of some objects), then documenting it, tagging and changes in tools later. For me the biggest question is: are we ready for this and only inertia is at play or maybe there are some valid objections or issues we should think about before the change? cheers +1 =} -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
Am 15.05.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: Speaking of language/cultural differences: even I don't know how to tag higher schools in Poland - as universities or colleges maybe - because further/continuing education idea is simply not used here, but we have no common university, college etc tag. either one of the available tags fit for your purpose or you will have to invent a new tag, that's how OSM works. The situation would be different for you if we had a common tag for any kind of higher education, but it seems that other mappers have thought this approach would be less useful for them (or we would already have this tag). IMHO in general we have to deal with what is there, yes, we can try to make some changes to make the system more consistent or complete, but if you come and want to change everything there will naturally be some reluctance. This is ever more true with established usage of a tag. If you still want to try, please use a namespace/ keys that are not yet in use, so to avoid conflicts with other mappers and to allow for parallel tagging during transition (also look at the tags path and public_transport which are examples for previous attempts to redesign parts of the tagging scheme) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get landuse=building even. Uhhh. What? This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor segregated for a specific use. I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a reason. Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) That would be a great oceanuse tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster farm). I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, containing the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school. That land…. designated to be used by people… as a school… And which currently is altered from it’s natural state … to be a school ground… and has an area easily defined… as a school… should be “landuse=school” The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as amenities IMO - or should we have a tny little 30x30cm squares marked as landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher? It’s just as asinine as landuse=glacier. Which leads us to this statement: So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does. ?? when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks spilled across the map. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087 Even without naming, and using only a single landuse across multiple areas, gives a much clearer idea of what is there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950 Landuse ties them together int he way we already spatially identify them - this is a “school” this is an “apartment complex”… This is a “university” - The building+landuse for individual facilities gives you so much more together than just one by itself. The land and non-building amenities contained within the landuse are as important as the building. And… the name=* belongs to the landuse for all larger facilities. A big school (or mall or business complex) with many named buildings, pools, parking, seating, pitches, walkways, and wahatnot… is currently amenity=school + name=FooBar School. (I feel it should be landuse=school). same as landuse=retail name=FooBar OutDoor Mall. Or landuse=industrial name=FooBar Works. No single building is actually named the name of the facility - and often is named something else! - so the name=* for the facility doesn’t belong to it. Even tiny schools. My school has two buildings. Both have the same number of students. Which is named for the school? Neither. The ground has the name - out on the wall. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257 The name goes on the landuse, which includes the school’s parking, bike racks, hedges, walkways, water tanks, tress, and stairways. The wall around our perimeter is an an easily mapped and easily defined area boundary. Everything inside is landuse=school - as all of those amenities not only belong to the school, but support the operation of the school. Are the parking lots around a stadium not part of the stadium? Are the lawns, walkways, quads, and roadways not part of a business complex? What about a hospital with multiple buildings? http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
2015-05-15 17:23 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: I don't think it's simply if we don't have it, we don't need it, because if we need it, we would have it already. =} You probably underestimate the power of inertia and good enough system. yes, I agree. What I meant was: to tag an university the current tag is easy: use one tag amenity=university and you're done and seeing it you can be sure that the tag describes an university or is misplaced. No need to specify: research_institution=yes, educational_institution=yes, educational_level=4+5 etc., Now if you want to map something that isn't actually an university or a college then you'll have to invent something new for this. duck tagging. A goose is not a duck ;-) Back to your higher schools in Poland, I guess they are not universities, unless they also do research, while for college I am not sure. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
2015-05-15 19:22 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: I think it was a clever move, sparing us additional typing and storage, but still in reality area is a basic concept with some exceptions, rather than special property of GIS objects. yes, it is planned to have a real area datatype, sooner or later. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
W dniu 15.05.2015 18:33, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): the area tag is sort of a special tag, it is used as a geometry flag to say whether a closed way is linear or a polygon. That is how we are used to think about it, but it's just a convention. If you flip the point of view, you can say area is one of a most basic GIS objects and it means we have a filled polygon with some additional properties and functions probably (like name, school or highway), and one very special exception (value no is rare - 1,67%) telling it's a closed line (probably also with some properties). It is strange, I agree, but still useful, coherent and no worse than building=no (0,01%, so also marginal, but useful and coherent too). For many types of objects area=* is so basic, that we don't even use it explicitly unless we need to tell something is different this time. And it's also highly conventional, because no highway is a line in reality, it's always an area, but it just happened we started OSM with routing in mind (big and middle scale) rather than micromapping (micro scale) and to make things easier we assumed that closing the highway line by default means area=no. I think it was a clever move, sparing us additional typing and storage, but still in reality area is a basic concept with some exceptions, rather than special property of GIS objects. -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
As there are very few things on OSM that aren't 'amenities' I think the amenity tag is valueless amenity=mountain amenity=river amenity=building amenity=shop Do things categorised currently as an amenity need to be in such a categorisation ? amenity=pub is really just pub(=yes) etc. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 15/05/2015 9:59 AM, pmailkeey . wrote: The only reason for categories is to allow subcategories like 'type' - so that you know it's a type of highway or a type of building. Not the only reason'? It is usefull to gather like things together ... make them; easier to find for data entry easier to process, as similar things usually have similar process requirements have common 'type' subcategoires ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote: As there are very few things on OSM that aren't 'amenities' I think the amenity tag is valueless amenity=mountain Current tag natural=peak amenity=river Current tag waterway=river amenity=building Current tag building= amenity=shop Current tag shop= So poor examples above ? Do things categorised currently as an amenity need to be in such a categorisation ? amenity=pub is really just pub(=yes) etc. That is a better example .. to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. As are restaurants, petrol stations etc. petrol stations, parking might be better associated with the highway= tag ... though that is very populated. But a bench, shelter, shower, post box, telephone ? where do they go? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 15 May 2015 at 00:27, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote: As there are very few things on OSM that aren't 'amenities' I think the amenity tag is valueless amenity=mountain Current tag natural=peak amenity=river Current tag waterway=river amenity=building Current tag building= amenity=shop Current tag shop= So poor examples above ? Do things categorised currently as an amenity need to be in such a categorisation ? amenity=pub is really just pub(=yes) etc. That is a better example .. to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. As are restaurants, petrol stations etc. petrol stations, parking might be better associated with the highway= tag ... though that is very populated. But a bench, shelter, shower, post box, telephone ? where do they go? building=shelter building=pub bench=yes bench=backrest post=box post=office communications=mast communications=cable communications=pole communications=phone communications=phonebox shower ??? The question is, does everything need to be in a category ? The only reason for categories is to allow subcategories like 'type' - so that you know it's a type of highway or a type of building. communications=cable type=voice type=digital type=optical type=broadband type=mechanical etc. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging
On 15 May 2015 at 01:13, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 15/05/2015 9:59 AM, pmailkeey . wrote: The only reason for categories is to allow subcategories like 'type' - so that you know it's a type of highway or a type of building. Not the only reason'? It is usefull to gather like things together ... make them; easier to find for data entry easier to process, as similar things usually have similar process requirements have common 'type' subcategoires A taxi rank is a highway - but not in OSM A bus stop is a building or a point - but not in OSM I find the categorisation of objects in OSM a major hindrance at times. The Wiki is not overly helpful either as the search tends not to find things. Perhaps OSM needs a Venn diagram - with alphabetical listed tags? -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
