Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Looks like this has been done again http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651 The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider this is vandalism, I think that you would be wrong. Vandalism would be spelling your name across that harbour in highway=motorway, or deleting the UN building outline. This is a mapping disagreement, changing it back and forth might turn it into an editing war but it's still just a disagreement between two or more mappers. what should I do? Forget about it and leave it alone? Or talk directly with the other mapper. Use site mail, say Hi, be nice and invite them to join your discussion here. It's easy to miss a discussion about tagging on one or more mailing lists. While the discussion here, on tagging@ or the wiki might be comprehensive and lead to a consensus, it won't necessarily reach every mapper. And consensus here doesn't create law. But remember that in a tagging disagreement, each party is a contributor to OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Looks like this has been done again http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651 The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider this is vandalism, I think that you would be wrong. Vandalism would be spelling your name across that harbour in highway=motorway, or deleting the UN building outline. This is a mapping disagreement, changing it back and forth might turn it into an editing war but it's still just a disagreement between two or more mappers. If swanilli reverted my changeset (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886) where I changed the nodes I added into closed ways then I wouldn't mind that as it is a disagreement that we should try to resolve on the mailing list. Whatever the outcome of that discussion I can either revert that revert of his/hers or do nothing to leave his/her revert in place as is. But instead of doing a clean revert he/she did this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651), the result is my source tags were deleated and the history of the original nodes I added was no longer tied to the nodes he/she added in and some of the nodes were forgotten completely. He/She has partially fixed the forgotten nodes with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6164031 but he/she still didn't provide his/her own source tag in lure of the ones I originally added, or tied the nodes history back to the original nodes that I added. So effectivly in my view swanilli has deleated the bays I originally added as nodes, and then put them back in as new nodes with a different ID, while at the same time removing some of the tags I originally had without providing any alternatives to thouse source tags. what should I do? Forget about it and leave it alone? Or talk directly with the other mapper. Use site mail, say Hi, be nice and invite them to join your discussion here. It's easy to miss a discussion about tagging on one or more mailing lists. While the discussion here, on tagging@ or the wiki might be comprehensive and lead to a consensus, it won't necessarily reach every mapper. And consensus here doesn't create law. But remember that in a tagging disagreement, each party is a contributor to OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On 25 October 2010 10:01, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: So effectivly in my view swanilli has deleated the bays I originally added as nodes, and then put them back in as new nodes with a different ID, while at the same time removing some of the tags I originally had without providing any alternatives to thouse source tags. Clearly done the wrong thing, IMO. I think there is still room to assume good faith. I know that I sometimes don't catch up the mailing lists or OSM messages for months at a time. I find putting the information and reasoning in the tags works well for communication. Information in the notes, or even in notes:FOR_SWANILLI. It also lets others editing in the area know what is going on. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 October 2010 10:01, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: So effectivly in my view swanilli has deleated the bays I originally [ ... ] Clearly done the wrong thing, IMO. I think there is still room to assume good faith. Absolutely. I've contacted a few mappers over edits that I found unusual. Invariably, the issue caused by something innocent: - They are new - They don't use $mailing-list - They thought OSM was for imaginary cities (!!! Really.) - They didn't realize they pressed save - they didn't notice $something Make a massive good faith presumption. These are people who have, so far: - heard about OSM - thought it was a good idea - registered - confirmed their email - tried to make an edit Chances are much better that this is an innocent mistake / misunderstanding, rather than something deliberate to provoke conflict. If you are both editing in the same area, chances are that this is a neighbour. You could be sharing a drink with this person. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
- Original Message - From: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com To: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote: Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline across the entrance. I see you've fix that now. I'm not sure that was correct. Looking at all ways forming the coastline there should be an uninterrupted sequence of ways. Currently there appears to be: 1) one section of ways tagged as natural = coastline which are a continuous collection of ways running up the coast and across the entrance to the bay. 2) another section of ways within the bay , tagged as natural = coastline Either the ways in the bay need to have natural = coastline removed from them, OR the bit across the mouth of the bay needs to have natural = coastline removed from it. I cant say whether this is the reason why the bay is not rendering blue, but it certainly is not going to help matters. Also note that if this is the reason, then due to the fact that mapnik coastline layer is not updated as frequently as other data, then no immediate change may be noticeable. David Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, such as a lake or pond. To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly surrounded or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than the surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. I think it should be a bay or coastline. If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have different reasons to tag certain ways. http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# Okay, I'm happy with bay now. I've split off some of the other bays (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer. Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Some one has has edited the data since. So it is now different. I have removed the coastline across the entrance and removed the natural=water tag in the multipolygon. Also I added back the inner bays that were removed by the user. Regards, Markus -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Groom Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2010 8:36 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) - Original Message - From: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com To: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote: Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline across the entrance. I see you've fix that now. I'm not sure that was correct. Looking at all ways forming the coastline there should be an uninterrupted sequence of ways. Currently there appears to be: 1) one section of ways tagged as natural = coastline which are a continuous collection of ways running up the coast and across the entrance to the bay. 2) another section of ways within the bay , tagged as natural = coastline Either the ways in the bay need to have natural = coastline removed from them, OR the bit across the mouth of the bay needs to have natural = coastline removed from it. I cant say whether this is the reason why the bay is not rendering blue, but it certainly is not going to help matters. Also note that if this is the reason, then due to the fact that mapnik coastline layer is not updated as frequently as other data, then no immediate change may be noticeable. David Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, such as a lake or pond. To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly surrounded or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than the surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. I think it should be a bay or coastline. If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have different reasons to tag certain ways. http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# Okay, I'm happy with bay now. I've split off some of the other bays (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer. Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Too many edits for me to keep track of, and it is hard to read every change file to understand exactly what has been changed. So I would find it helpful if the changes to Port Hacking/surronding bays are discussed and explained here, if it won't fit in the comment. Thanks. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
All of the inner bays that you added were removed by swanilli. I reverted the change to get the bays back and have left Port Hacking as coastline at the moment. Markus -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2010 9:46 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) Too many edits for me to keep track of, and it is hard to read every change file to understand exactly what has been changed. So I would find it helpful if the changes to Port Hacking/surronding bays are discussed and explained here, if it won't fit in the comment. Thanks. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Looks like this has been done again http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651 The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider this is vandalism, what should I do? On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote: All of the inner bays that you added were removed by swanilli. I reverted the change to get the bays back and have left Port Hacking as coastline at the moment. Markus ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
I should follow up on the reasons why I added these bays as a closed way. First the bay is the whole body of water, not just some point in the middle. Second, using a way allows renderers to for instance render names for large bays at low zooms, and not render names for small bays untill very high zooms. Third, it allows for someone to use the database to ask Am I in ... Bay? On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Looks like this has been done again http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651 The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider this is vandalism, what should I do? On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote: All of the inner bays that you added were removed by swanilli. I reverted the change to get the bays back and have left Port Hacking as coastline at the moment. Markus ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Botany Bay had one single way for the outer way, wheras Port Hacking as serveral non-closed ways whose ends meet up for the outers. That could explain why they render different, but I don't think that is the reason. Because those bays I split off (eg Gunnamatta Bay) are just normal single closed way bays, and although the renderer seems to have moved the names to the centre of the newly created way from where the node was previously, they are not rendering blue. So I have no idea whats going on.. Could it be a coastline problem? On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote: I have noticed that Port Hacking still doesn't appear in blue on the Mapnik Layer. Maybe natural=bay isn't supported as multipolygons. On the wikki it only shows usage to be for nodes and ways. It doesn't make sense though that it worked ok on Botany Bay. I had a look at world usage of natural=bay tag value uses node way relation natural bay 15,286 15,029 240 17 Maybe it should be natural=water after all. Any ideas. Markus. -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote: Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline across the entrance. I see you've fix that now. Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, such as a lake or pond. To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly surrounded or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than the surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. I think it should be a bay or coastline. If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have different reasons to tag certain ways. http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# Okay, I'm happy with bay now. I've split off some of the other bays (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer. Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline across the entrance. Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, such as a lake or pond. To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly surrounded or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than the surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. I think it should be a bay or coastline. If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have different reasons to tag certain ways. http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# Regards, Markus. -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2010 10:14 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water) It seems Port Hacking has been subject to some edit warring. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/285916/history My view is that it is not a bay. Its name doesn't have bay, its more of a lake, or just a body of water, I would have thought. What is the consenus here? Should it be tagged natural=bay, natural=water or something else? Port Jackson, is similar, it just continues the coastline into the inlet of water. I would personally not prefer this though, because then you cannot tag it as Port Jackson. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g marku...@bigpond.com wrote: Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline across the entrance. I see you've fix that now. Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water, such as a lake or pond. To be tagged as natural=bay it should be an area of water mostly surrounded or otherwise demarcated by land. Bays generally have calmer waters than the surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often reducing winds. It can also be an inlet in a lake or pond. I think it should be a bay or coastline. If I am unsure I use the following source to decide, but others may have different reasons to tag certain ways. http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name/ It lists the feature code for Port Hacking as a bay. http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazd01?rec=78217# Okay, I'm happy with bay now. I've split off some of the other bays (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6103886), I wasn't sure if these should also form part of the mulitpolygon as well as outer. Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On 20 October 2010 09:51, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary. I really doubt that placing it on the ABS boundary is a step forward - it misses many details of the bay. The Port Hacking has been adjusted in many points, by survey, interpolation and yahoo, and is mostly more accurate in my view than the ABS data. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
