Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
2014-10-20 19:13 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: Most known caves are dry. I know because I have been in thousands of them. being dry doesn't mean they are not water-related. beaches also often are dry. please don't take wikipedia as your one and only reference. I don't, but it is the easiest to quote. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
2014-10-17 19:25 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: A cave is a hollow mould, thus a landform (or a georelief element, or whatever). I own several books on geomorphology, and each of them has a chapter on caves. If we did what you propose it would still be arbitrarily divided as there would be landforms in vegetation related and landforms in water related. Well, you may consider a bay a landform, but without doubt it's water-related in the first place. I propose to put beach in landforms and cave in water-related. Also coastline could go into landforms. And moor into landforms. And mud in water-related. What about putting fell into landforms? ... When you do a classification, you put every element where it fits best. It's just to get some structure in a long list. yes, that's the point. Our classification system is tags, and this is about the natural class. Putting the values of natural into arbitrary subclasses doesn't help anybody. IMHO. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
On 20.10.2014 17:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I propose to put beach in landforms and cave in water-related. Also coastline could go into landforms. And moor into landforms. And mud in water-related. What about putting fell into landforms? ... Most known caves are dry. I know because I have been in thousands of them. As I already told you, I am unsure what's the correct generic term for full forms, hollow moulds and flat forms. If you don't like landform, you are invited to come up with an alternative. But please don't take wikipedia as your one and only reference. Our classification system is tags, and this is about the natural class. Putting the values of natural into arbitrary subclasses doesn't help anybody. IMHO. Well, that may be your opinion, but when you look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features you'll find that quite a lot of keys have subclasses defined, particularly when the keys have a large number of values. I already mentioned shop=* as an example. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
2014-10-07 15:56 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: Hi Martin, regarding the wiki page, I'm assuming you're talking about Frankthetankk's edits? I'm not seeing what the issue is. Could you clarify what change you see as disputable? sorry for taking that long to respond, I've been on vacation with reduced internet access ;-) I think the classification system that was introduced is arbitrary and has some issues. Some examples: vegetation related contains at least the following objects that don't fit IMHO. Of course you can relate everything to vegetation (either there will be some kind, or there won't) but that doesn't make this automatically a logical class. - fell (bad tag anyway, word has different meanings and seems to be used only in a limited regional context in the way that it is defined, the description requires principally covered with grass but the main qualifier seems to be that it is a high lying landscape). - moor - is characterized by the humidity and acidic soils and the elevation level, not the vegetation - heath (is about certain soils) - mud (this is about the grain size of minerals and the amount of moisture) - sand (this is about the grain size of minerals) - stone (this is about freestanding stones! Really nothing to do with vegetation) - wetland (is about the amount of water in the ground) water related and mountains related: completely arbitrary, you'll find water in the mountains, springs in the mountains, vegetation in the mountains, vegetation in and near the water, etc. mountains related - a cave doesn't have to be in the mountains - a cliff doesn't have to be in the mountains - a glacier is water related and temperature related, but it doesn't require mountains - a rock can't only be found in the mountains - a volcano isn't mountain related (always) I think the inconsistencies are so significant that there is no point in trying to correct these, and there is no advantage in having this arbitrary structure instead of a long list. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
On 17.10.2014 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: mountains related - a cave doesn't have to be in the mountains - a cliff doesn't have to be in the mountains - a glacier is water related and temperature related, but it doesn't require mountains - a rock can't only be found in the mountains - a volcano isn't mountain related (always) Let's rename mountain related to landforms and move glacier to water related, and everything is fine. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
On 17.10.2014 15:49, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 17.10.2014 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: mountains related - a cave doesn't have to be in the mountains - a cliff doesn't have to be in the mountains - a glacier is water related and temperature related, but it doesn't require mountains - a rock can't only be found in the mountains - a volcano isn't mountain related (always) Let's rename mountain related to landforms and move glacier to water related, and everything is fine. I was eager to do that, so I just did it, plus some more reordering. Please review. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
2014-10-17 15:49 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: Let's rename mountain related to landforms and move glacier to water related, and everything is fine. a cave entrance isn't a landform. The issues with vegetation related would persist. Wikipedia says about landforms: A *landform* is a geomorphological http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology unit, and is largely defined by its surface form and location in the landscape. As part of the terrain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain, a landform is an element of topography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topography. Landform elements also include land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land such as hills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill, mountains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain, plateaus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau, canyons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon, valleys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley, seascape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seascape and oceanic waterbody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbody interface features such as bays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay, peninsulas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula, seas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea and so forth. If we did what you propose it would still be arbitrarily divided as there would be landforms in vegetation related and landforms in water related. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
On 17.10.2014 16:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: a cave entrance isn't a landform. There are several similar terms, like georelief elements. I don't know which one fits best. Anyway, these consist of one or more of: full forms hollow moulds flat forms A cave is a hollow mould, thus a landform (or a georelief element, or whatever). I own several books on geomorphology, and each of them has a chapter on caves. If we did what you propose it would still be arbitrarily divided as there would be landforms in vegetation related and landforms in water related. Well, you may consider a bay a landform, but without doubt it's water-related in the first place. When you do a classification, you put every element where it fits best. It's just to get some structure in a long list. Have a look at the key:shop template. You could place supermarket in the food, beverages section, but it's in the general store, department store, mall section. Likewise you could put bathroom_furnishing and houseware in the furniture and interior section, variety_store in the general store, department store, mall section, and so on. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
Il giorno 07/ott/2014, alle ore 19:40, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com ha scritto: For example it's not clear to me whether you would accept natural=tree (see my first point), but since there are more than 4 million of them, I think you are going to have to accept them. I'm in a hurry now, just a remark: natural=tree should be kept, it does fit logically into the scheme, it says: one tree. Like a spring, a bay, a wetland, a rock etc mud doesn't fit, for natural that would be wetland (with appropriate subtags). The same for sand, this would be beach or desert or wasteland or ... sand or mud aren't geographical features in my understanding, they are orthogonal and hence are creating conflicts (because you could either tag beach or sand etc) What might be disputed is water. In my reading something like lake or pond would fit better, but this can be done with subtagging as well, like it is already proposed so I wouldn't change water for historical reasons cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
According to the wiki, the natural key is currently a mixture of different aspects of something. The wiki states that it covers a selection of geological and landcover features. My suggestion is to keep only geological/geographical features in natural (all three, point features like peak and spring as well as linear features like natural=cliff or coastline and areas like natural=fell/wetland/beach/heath/bay/scrub/...) and to move the landcover features (those describing material rather than features, e.g. mud and sand) to a different key (my suggestion is landcover but there are also mappers advocating surface). A more coherent scheme would have a lot of advantages (easier to learn and understand because of more inherent logics, easier to maintain and extend and would allow to elaborate on different aspects for the same area object (i.e. will lead to more detailed data in the end)). --- Additionally I have spotted that recently a user has decided to group the features according to his interpretation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:naturalaction=history I believe that this new grouping is disputable and propose to revert this change. --- Please comment. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
Hi Martin, regarding the wiki page, I'm assuming you're talking about Frankthetankk's edits? I'm not seeing what the issue is. Could you clarify what change you see as disputable? Thanks, Brad On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: snip Additionally I have spotted that recently a user has decided to group the features according to his interpretation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:naturalaction=history I believe that this new grouping is disputable and propose to revert this change. --- Please comment. 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] cleanup of the key natural
+1 if it means that the rendering of these features is done according to whatever is agreed. I have a particular interest in coastal and tidal riverbank areas. I had tagged some such areas some years ago according to the Wiki and the rendering was as expected. Since the introduction of Carto, the rendering rules between coastal and riverbank wetland/tidalflat sand/mud changed, causing abrupt changes in estuaries, where sea becomes river at some arbitrary point. Now recently, the zoom rules between mud and sand/beach have diverged. In summary, I would like to see a set of tagging rules that produce predictable consistent renderings in the map. I am agnostic as to exactly what these tags should be will gladly change my mapping to the new scheme. I will leave it to others to argue at length over what the tags should be! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural
Now recently, the zoom rules between mud and sand/beach have diverged. - I consider this as a bug and I plan on fixing it in the near future (see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1018 ). 2014-10-07 16:49 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com: +1 if it means that the rendering of these features is done according to whatever is agreed. I have a particular interest in coastal and tidal riverbank areas. I had tagged some such areas some years ago according to the Wiki and the rendering was as expected. Since the introduction of Carto, the rendering rules between coastal and riverbank wetland/tidalflat sand/mud changed, causing abrupt changes in estuaries, where sea becomes river at some arbitrary point. Now recently, the zoom rules between mud and sand/beach have diverged. In summary, I would like to see a set of tagging rules that produce predictable consistent renderings in the map. I am agnostic as to exactly what these tags should be will gladly change my mapping to the new scheme. I will leave it to others to argue at length over what the tags should be! ___ 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] cleanup of the key natural
Hi Martin, OK, well since you requested comments: Firstly, I find it difficult to understand what makes your proposed split more coherent or easy to learn than thewiki- grouping that you propose to revert! By the way please don't start a revert battle without first talking to that editor. Secondly, these tags are used so widely that I think you may have missed your chance. For example it's not clear to me whether you would accept natural=tree (see my first point), but since there are more than 4 million of them, I think you are going to have to accept them. If you want to make a change to the tagging of a massive number of objects, you're going to need a _really_ persuasive argument. Not to persuade me, but to persuade the crowd... Just my 2p Best Dan 2014-10-07 14:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: According to the wiki, the natural key is currently a mixture of different aspects of something. The wiki states that it covers a selection of geological and landcover features. My suggestion is to keep only geological/geographical features in natural (all three, point features like peak and spring as well as linear features like natural=cliff or coastline and areas like natural=fell/wetland/beach/heath/bay/scrub/...) and to move the landcover features (those describing material rather than features, e.g. mud and sand) to a different key (my suggestion is landcover but there are also mappers advocating surface). A more coherent scheme would have a lot of advantages (easier to learn and understand because of more inherent logics, easier to maintain and extend and would allow to elaborate on different aspects for the same area object (i.e. will lead to more detailed data in the end)). --- Additionally I have spotted that recently a user has decided to group the features according to his interpretation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:naturalaction=history I believe that this new grouping is disputable and propose to revert this change. --- Please comment. 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
