Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:24:55 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: Is there still some chance to get them merged? Please make clear if there is going to be used only cemetery tag or will there be two tags; cemetery and graveyard. Also please make this REALLY clear on the wiki. What is the difference between graveyard and grave_yard tag? Here on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/graveyard says that cemetery tag is to be obsoleted?!? This is really confusing. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
Valent Turkovic wrote: Please make clear if there is going to be used only cemetery tag or will there be two tags; cemetery and graveyard. I can't tell you what tags will be used in the future. I (and some others) would prefer to remove the distinction between the two tags and use the same tag for all burial places, but that's only a suggestion and does not (yet) reflect tagging reality. Current documentation suggests that there are two tags and that there is a vague distinction between cemetery and grave_yard: grave_yards tend to be smaller, older - sometimes even disused -, more likely to be property of a religious organisation and are usually in proximity to a place of worship. There is no exact definition, though. What is the difference between graveyard and grave_yard tag? graveyard does not exist as a documented tag. Here on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/graveyard says that cemetery tag is to be obsoleted?!? This is really confusing. This is a proposal that didn't get far, so it isn't really relevant for now. Not everything someone has written on the wiki is relevant documentation, especially if they have written proposal over it and no one has touched the page for almost two years. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On a side note, do people render different denominations in cemeteries? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/09/2009 01:11, Roy Wallace wrote: But I would support any proposal that merges these and includes complementary tags to explicitly specify differences as necessary. Does it really matter? Just treat them as synonyms. Having two different ways to tag a particular entity is not the best solution when building a database, IMHO. Or adopt a rule which says if a church is in the middle of it it is a graveyeard and if not it is a cemetery. I'm not sure what suggesting. The goal here is a set of tags and a corresponding set of definitions. I have suggested that amenity=cemetery be used for places where people are buried, with further details given by cemetery:*=* as necessary (and if affiliated with a place_of_worship, related with a relation). Have you got an alternative suggestion? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 10/09/2009 09:44, Roy Wallace wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/09/2009 01:11, Roy Wallace wrote: But I would support any proposal that merges these and includes complementary tags to explicitly specify differences as necessary. Does it really matter? Just treat them as synonyms. Having two different ways to tag a particular entity is not the best solution when building a database, IMHO. Indeed, but when we have an anarchic rather than specified tagging system, this is the least of our problems! David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 10/09/2009 10:02, David Earl wrote: On 10/09/2009 09:44, Roy Wallace wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/09/2009 01:11, Roy Wallace wrote: But I would support any proposal that merges these and includes complementary tags to explicitly specify differences as necessary. Does it really matter? Just treat them as synonyms. Having two different ways to tag a particular entity is not the best solution when building a database, IMHO. Indeed, but when we have an anarchic rather than specified tagging system, this is the least of our problems! Sorry, I should also have said ... there are two tags because someone cared enough about the difference to want to differentiate them. I'm surprised whoever that was hasn't spoken up. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
Hi, Sorry, I should also have said ... there are two tags because someone cared enough about the difference to want to differentiate them. I'm surprised whoever that was hasn't spoken up. That may be me. :) I do see a clear distinction between a grave yard and cemetery. I care little how they are actually tagged though. A grave yard is the land surrounding a church that is used for burying. The emphasis is that it is the land that belongs to the church, on which there is a building that is called a church. People do not look at the grave yard and think that's a church, although they will understand that the land is associated with the church. The land could also be described as church land that happens to be full of bodies. However cemeteries are purely for the use of burying people, people do not go to the area to worship. They will go through a grave yard to get to a church to worship though. I base this distinction on when you point at a cemetery and ask What is that? a local will respond It's a cemetery., ask the same question in a church graveyard and you get It's a grave yard. Hope that doesn't muddy the waters even more. I believe many people will see the distinction, but I personally do not care now they are tagged. I am working to a semi-established scheme. These kind of discussions are worthwhile however little ever seems to come of them. I raise the very good idea, which I know could put us off on a tangent, of Tom Chance and Nop of Working Groups. Originally from the problems of footways etc, however this one does seem easier to solve. If I recall the idea was to have a working group (somehow democratically elected), that would have submissions for additions and changes made to them and they would discuss and decide what tags would be kept etc. This would be done by a carrot and stick method, ie the working group would have the developers of KeepRight, Potlatch, JOSM and the renderer involved. Such that a Working Group Approved tag would be default options in these things (or rendered). As such more people would use them, providing overall consistency and a defacto reference for those looking for tagging values. However the database would continue as it is, with anyone using the tags that they feel are appropriate. This was a very fuzzy idea and seemed to die down as the discussion about footways etc died down. I'm sure it will come back and I'm sure other similar issues would arrive. I am happy to continue with the status quo, however I can see things becoming increasingly difficult as the map becomes more complete. At the moment these things are not worth worrying about as the blank bits of the map require more attention (ie get it in the database first, then worry about tagging it). Again, I am happy to discuss the idea of a Working Group for Tagging Proposals. Although it should probably go in another thread. I can't find the old one. I now feel I've said too much, :) Ciarán ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: If you don't care, fine. But please don't suggest things that you admit aren't good solutions. I'm not suggesting it - that's the way it already is. You said Just treat them as synonyms. It sounded like a suggestion to me. And I think the discussion of committees to decide or better voting is a hiding to nothing so long as a sizeable proportion of the community doesn't believe in it, as they'll just carry on doing what they've always done. They've stopped even contributing to these discussions, they just get on with it. You're forgetting about the people who have yet to start mapping (who will outnumber the 150,000 current members within, say, a year?! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statistics). I know the first thing I did when I started was to visit the map features wiki page. That page is important. And as Ciaran points out, whether we like it or not, editor presets are also important. If we want OSM to be adopted at the data level, we have to stop changing tags because people think they look prettier. It's like MS changing the file format for Word with no compatibility support - a sure fire way to lose customers. Backward compatibility hasn't been too much of an issue within a closed community of consumer tools, but that's changing and if we don't take backward compatibility seriously, we'll end up staying just a closed community. And before someone says but that means you can never change anything I'm not saying that, merely that it needs a much less casual approach to changing things, especially for aesthetic reasons which this essentially is, than dealing with new ones which can be dealt with more freely. So is your point: we need a much less casual approach to changing things for aesthetic reasons? What approach would you suggest? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Valent Turkovicvalent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/graveyard This page is old/unfinished and very ambiguous. Can somebody make clear how to tag cemeteries, and how to name them correctly? If I have polygon do I add name= to polygon or do I add a point in the middle of cemetery with amenity=cemetery and name=name ? I have been using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcemetery landuse=cemetery and adding name to the polygon (and or religious affiliations) where appropriate. No need for a separate point as far as I can see. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 09/09/2009 21:43, Valent Turkovic wrote: Is grave_yard tag used? I don't see it in JOSM. Why is the wiki so confusing for this simple thing to map. I think the original distinction was that a graveyard is the burial ground around a church, while a cemetery is a separate pice of land set aside for burials, not necessarily associated with a church, or a denomination - in the UK, many of these are operated by local authorities not religious institutions, while the graveyard around a church is exclusive to the church. Having said that, I kind of agree with you, that the distinction is subtle and probably adds little. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 09/09/2009 22:00, David Earl wrote: On 09/09/2009 21:43, Valent Turkovic wrote: Is grave_yard tag used? I don't see it in JOSM. Why is the wiki so confusing for this simple thing to map. I think the original distinction was that a graveyard is the burial ground around a church, while a cemetery is a separate pice of land set aside for burials, not necessarily associated with a church, or a denomination - in the UK, many of these are operated by local authorities not religious institutions, while the graveyard around a church is exclusive to the church. Though around here, quite a few of the graveyards next to churches are operated by the council, and they are called placename Cemetery or similar. Having said that, I kind of agree with you, that the distinction is subtle and probably adds little. It seems like a fairly pointless and confusing distinction to me. Shouldn't the fact that they are next to / around a church be obvious from the church marked on the map? And the cemetery can be tagged with the operator / religion / denomination as appropriate. Also, I notice (according to Map Features on the wiki) amenity=grave_yard can apply to a node or an area, whereas landuse=cemetery is supposed to be just for areas. Though amenity=grave_yard on a node doesn't seem to rendered at all (on Mapnik or Osmarender), but landuse=cemetery on a node does render the name (but no symbol). On areas, both appear to be rendered identically. Craig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
Craig Wallace schrieb: On 09/09/2009 22:00, David Earl wrote: On 09/09/2009 21:43, Valent Turkovic wrote: Is grave_yard tag used? I don't see it in JOSM. Why is the wiki so confusing for this simple thing to map. I think the original distinction was that a graveyard is the burial ground around a church, while a cemetery is a separate pice of land set aside for burials, not necessarily associated with a church, or a denomination - in the UK, many of these are operated by local authorities not religious institutions, while the graveyard around a church is exclusive to the church. Though around here, quite a few of the graveyards next to churches are operated by the council, and they are called placename Cemetery or similar. So what's the question now? Having said that, I kind of agree with you, that the distinction is subtle and probably adds little. It seems like a fairly pointless and confusing distinction to me. Shouldn't the fact that they are next to / around a church be obvious from the church marked on the map? And the cemetery can be tagged with the operator / religion / denomination as appropriate. Well, it's simply a bad thing to indicate stuff by something that's nearby. What's nearby? 1m/10m/100m/1000m? Is it indicated by a place_of_worship, a building=church or xy? Also, I notice (according to Map Features on the wiki) amenity=grave_yard can apply to a node or an area, whereas landuse=cemetery is supposed to be just for areas. Though amenity=grave_yard on a node doesn't seem to rendered at all (on Mapnik or Osmarender), but landuse=cemetery on a node does render the name (but no symbol). On areas, both appear to be rendered identically. Don't tag for the renderers ;-) Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 10/09/2009 01:21, Ulf Lamping wrote: Craig Wallace schrieb: Though around here, quite a few of the graveyards next to churches are operated by the council, and they are called placename Cemetery or similar. So what's the question now? The question is what's the difference between a amenity=grave_yard and a landuse=cemetery, and is there any point in having 2 tags for what is essentially the same thing? Well, it's simply a bad thing to indicate stuff by something that's nearby. What's nearby? 1m/10m/100m/1000m? Is it indicated by a place_of_worship, a building=church or xy? But why does it matter whether there is a church there or not? A grave_yard (next to a church) is still much the same as a cemetery (not next to a church), its still just a place for burying dead people. Don't tag for the renderers ;-) I'm not, I was just reporting what is currently rendered. Though it would be nice to have a symbol for a node tagged as a graveyard/cemetery. Craig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
Craig Wallace schrieb: On 10/09/2009 01:21, Ulf Lamping wrote: Well, it's simply a bad thing to indicate stuff by something that's nearby. What's nearby? 1m/10m/100m/1000m? Is it indicated by a place_of_worship, a building=church or xy? But why does it matter whether there is a church there or not? A grave_yard (next to a church) is still much the same as a cemetery (not next to a church), its still just a place for burying dead people. I guess you get it the wrong way round. It doesn't matter if there's a church nearby or not. This is an *indication* if it's one thing or the other - but not more. How would you describe it? When I'm riding my motorcycle in the alps I see lot's of different stuff ... If there are 30 graves (often even 100 years old) directly near a church that's very certainly a grave_yard IMHO. If there are thousands of WWI graves I certainly would tag these as a landuse=cemetery ... you're mileage may vary ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
What landuse would you recommend for a cemetery? It's been said that all land should be covered by some landuse or other. Like putting in Landuse=retail but also listing the individual shops as amenities. So should we put both landuse=cemetery and an amenity=cemetery/graveyard node, or are you suggesting we deprecate landuse=cemetery and use some other landuse (residential? - retail = they're often a business?) Stephen 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: By the way, I think a cemetery is better described as an amenity, not a landuse, as I think it is a useful and important facility moreso than an area of land used by people (from the wiki definitions of Key:amenity and Key:landuse). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: By the way, I think a cemetery is better described as an amenity, not a landuse, as I think it is a useful and important facility moreso than an area of land used by people (from the wiki definitions of Key:amenity and Key:landuse). What landuse would you recommend for a cemetery? It's been said that all land should be covered by some landuse or other. Like putting in Landuse=retail but also listing the individual shops as amenities. So should we put both landuse=cemetery and an amenity=cemetery/graveyard node, or are you suggesting we deprecate landuse=cemetery and use some other landuse (residential? - retail = they're often a business?) Ah, good question. Firstly, amenity=cemetery should be able to be a node (as a placeholder for future conversion to an area) OR an area. As for landuse=*, look at the Key:landuse wiki page. For amenity=school, for example, a similar question arises, and the solution seems to be to use the value of amenity=* to infer the landuse. This would work perfectly for an amenity=cemetery. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
