Re: [talk-au] vine row tagging

[Brendan Barnes]

Depends of level of detail sought, but each grapevine could be marked as
natural=shrub .

My first thought was to use barrier=fence
, but the wiki
defines it as a "freestanding structure designed to *restrict or prevent
movement across a boundary*".

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:46, Adam Steer  wrote:

> Hey John
>
> What are the owners of the properties containing vines saying? Are they
> fully aware that their farm data will be open for everyone to see?
>
> ...and what data/tagging useful to them?
>
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 08:40, John Bryant  wrote:
>
>> So, map the strainer posts on the ends of the rows, rather than the rows
>> themselves, and then the end user could use them to interpolate the row?
>> That's an interesting idea.
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:33, nwastra  wrote:
>>
>>> Many vineyards have numbered rows with a tag on the end strainer posts
>>> to assist direction of workers, etc.
>>> These could be numbered using the addr interpolation scheme and then
>>> individual rows would not need to be mapped but does need a close survey.
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 3:32 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:13, John Bryant  wrote:
>>>
 Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely
 mapped before.

>>>
>>> Do you need to?
>>>
>>> I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their
>>> vines in rows, approx the same distance apart?
>>>
>>> I noticed vine_row_orientation
>>> =* : vine
>>> row orientation (in degrees)on the wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?
>>>
>>> For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had
 suggestions of natural=tree_row,

>>>
>>> If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have
>>> nothing but a solid mass of them!
>>>
>>> denotation=agricultural,

>>>
>>> Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?
>>>
>>> and crop=grape,

>>>
>>> Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] vine row tagging

[Adam Steer]

 Hey John

What are the owners of the properties containing vines saying? Are they
fully aware that their farm data will be open for everyone to see?

...and what data/tagging useful to them?

Cheers,
Adam

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 08:40, John Bryant  wrote:

> So, map the strainer posts on the ends of the rows, rather than the rows
> themselves, and then the end user could use them to interpolate the row?
> That's an interesting idea.
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:33, nwastra  wrote:
>
>> Many vineyards have numbered rows with a tag on the end strainer posts to
>> assist direction of workers, etc.
>> These could be numbered using the addr interpolation scheme and then
>> individual rows would not need to be mapped but does need a close survey.
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 3:32 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:13, John Bryant  wrote:
>>
>>> Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely mapped
>>> before.
>>>
>>
>> Do you need to?
>>
>> I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their
>> vines in rows, approx the same distance apart?
>>
>> I noticed vine_row_orientation
>> =* : vine
>> row orientation (in degrees)on the wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?
>>
>> For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had
>>> suggestions of natural=tree_row,
>>>
>>
>> If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have
>> nothing but a solid mass of them!
>>
>> denotation=agricultural,
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?
>>
>> and crop=grape,
>>>
>>
>> Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] vine row tagging

[John Bryant]

So, map the strainer posts on the ends of the rows, rather than the rows
themselves, and then the end user could use them to interpolate the row?
That's an interesting idea.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:33, nwastra  wrote:

> Many vineyards have numbered rows with a tag on the end strainer posts to
> assist direction of workers, etc.
> These could be numbered using the addr interpolation scheme and then
> individual rows would not need to be mapped but does need a close survey.
>
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 3:32 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:13, John Bryant  wrote:
>
>> Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely mapped
>> before.
>>
>
> Do you need to?
>
> I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their
> vines in rows, approx the same distance apart?
>
> I noticed vine_row_orientation
> =* : vine
> row orientation (in degrees)on the wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?
>
> For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had
>> suggestions of natural=tree_row,
>>
>
> If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have
> nothing but a solid mass of them!
>
> denotation=agricultural,
>>
>
> Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?
>
> and crop=grape,
>>
>
> Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] vine row tagging

[John Bryant]

Thanks Graeme, I appreciate your response, answers to your questions below.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 13:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Do you need to?
>
Well, they want to map rows, to use OSM in a way that will be useful to the
viticulture community. The idea is to add more detail to vineyards than is
currently in OSM, which has vineyard areas but not rows.


> I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their
> vines in rows, approx the same distance apart?
>
To some degree, but for viticulture people it would be useful to use
*actual* rather than assumed locations.


> I noticed vine_row_orientation
> =* : vine
> row orientation (in degrees)on the wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?
>
That seems good for vineyard areas, but isn't needed for rows, which is
what we're trying to figure out tagging for.


> For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had
>> suggestions of natural=tree_row,
>>
> If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have
> nothing but a solid mass of them!
>
Referring to the OSM carto rendering? That's a good point. What else could
we use to describe a vine row?


> denotation=agricultural,
>>
> Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?
>
This was a suggestion that came to us, it's relatively commonly used for
trees and tree rows, but I'm not sure if it makes sense for vine rows,
which is why I'm asking :)

and crop=grape,
>>
> Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)
>
Yes I agree for vineyards. But specifically thinking about vine rows for
this tagging.

I guess these comments raise the question, do features like vine rows
belong in OSM? Does the difficulty in finding a tagging schema for vine
rows point to an incompatible feature type? I had assumed that because
they're readily observable on the ground, and relatively persistent, it
would make sense to map them... but if there's a reason they shouldn't be
in OSM it would be good to know, so the folks I'm helping can change course.

Cheers
John
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] vine row tagging

[nwastra]

Many vineyards have numbered rows with a tag on the end strainer posts to 
assist direction of workers, etc.
These could be numbered using the addr interpolation scheme and then individual 
rows would not need to be mapped but does need a close survey.

> On 15 Oct 2020, at 3:32 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:13, John Bryant  wrote:
>> Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely mapped 
>> before.
> 
> Do you need to?
> 
> I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their vines 
> in rows, approx the same distance apart?
> 
> I noticed vine_row_orientation=* : vine row orientation (in degrees)on the 
> wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?
> 
>> For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had 
>> suggestions of natural=tree_row,
> 
> If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have nothing 
> but a solid mass of them!  
> 
>> denotation=agricultural,
> 
> Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?
> 
>> and crop=grape,
> 
> Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Graeme
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] vine row tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:13, John Bryant  wrote:

> Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely mapped
> before.
>

Do you need to?

I think it could be automatically assumed that all vineyards have their
vines in rows, approx the same distance apart?

I noticed vine_row_orientation
=* : vine row
orientation (in degrees)on the wiki page - wouldn't that be sufficient?

For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had
> suggestions of natural=tree_row,
>

If you were going to put a tree_row on every row of vines, you'd have
nothing but a solid mass of them!

denotation=agricultural,
>

Sorry, not sure what you mean with this?

and crop=grape,
>

Marked as being redundant as all vineyards grow grapes! :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] vine row tagging

[John Bryant]

Hi all, I'm doing some work with a community agriculture group looking at
adding vineyard-related features to OSM, at this point starting with just
vine rows.

Vineyards themselves (ie. the polygons that contain the rows) are often
tagged with landuse=vineyard and crop=grape [1][2].

I can't see anything relevant to this in the Australian tagging guidelines.
Looking more broadly, it looks like vine rows haven't been widely mapped
before.

For vine *rows* (ie. the linear features within the vineyard), we've had
suggestions of natural=tree_row, denotation=agricultural, and crop=grape,
but not totally confident about this.

Does anyone here have any thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks
John

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvineyard
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=vineyard#combinations
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au