Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I forgot to mention that linear ways do have an implied width. It can be 
explicitly declared with the width tag. Although, other than waterways I 
don't /think/ any renderers take advantage of it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width

DaveF

On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Yes I *know*, Martin

I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing 
with mapping every *square inch* of land.
Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most 
renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines.
Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 
'standard' rendering.


On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.


Thanks Dave.

But a way is a *line*.

I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. 
Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be 
much more difficult.


If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the 
left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" 
flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where 
is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? 
Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? 
Which one?


cheers,

Martin.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Warin]

On 01/01/20 20:31, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 01/01/2020 09:21, Warin wrote:



OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, 
sport=cricket_nets etc)




So what is the significance of having proposed changes, voting, etc.?


Community input rather than a single persons idea.


There must be a set of accepted tags somewhere? As opposed to any tags 
I care to invent as I go along?


I use some tags despite some others who object to them. I think they are 
good tags, I disagree with their view.


One I could use a lot is barrier=broken_stile.


? Is the style damaged? If so I'd use a 'life cycle' prefix ...
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Jan 2020, 10:31 by mar...@templot.com:

> On 01/01/2020 09:21, Warin wrote:
>
>>
>> OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, sport=cricket_nets 
>> etc)
>>
>
> So what is the significance of having proposed changes, voting, etc.
>
It gives an useful feedback.

It is not mandatory to follow it.

Examples of how I used it:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcarpet_hanger
tag was improved and switched to more liked form,
I selected name not mutilating English

- man_made=bridge vote - confirmed that tag
was considered a good idea before 
implementing rendering in the default map style 
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/street_vendor%3Dyes

Feedback allowed me to significantly improve this proposal
> There must be a set of accepted tags somewhere? 
>
OSM Wiki, editor presets are form of
such documentation, but with 
smaller or larger mistakes___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Jan 2020, 12:58 by mar...@templot.com:

> On 01/01/2020 11:00, David Woolley wrote:
>
>>
>> The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what is 
>> allowable.
>>
>
> So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to discover 
> if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map renders it.
>
OSM Wiki, JOSM presets, Vespucci presets,
JOSM validator, iD presets, asking other mappers,
checkingtag usage, common sense are also available.

There is no definitive specification.
> If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. 
>
Just because it renders as one person expects
in one specific map style it does not
mean that it is correctly mapped.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Jan 2020, 15:31 by silentspike...@gmail.com:
> Definitely don't rely on the standard map to drive tagging practise, 
> rendering decisions for the standard map are made based on tag usage.
>
I would treat Standard Map display as a hint.

It is not final authority, but it very give an useful feedback.

Decisions about what and how should be rendered are
not based solely on tag usage, but it is the most important part.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Jan 2020, 08:13 by mar...@templot.com:
> Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. 
>
Why?
> Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see:
>
>  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway
>
It is ok to use tags that were never voted on
and ones that lost votes.
> However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as 
> evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown infill
>
This is a misuse of the Standard Map Style.

It is not defining correct use.

(I am author of current road rendering
in this map style, or to be more specific
- person who did last major redesign)

> betweenthe fences with the existing highway=track as a routable way 
> superimposed over it, in darker brown.
>
This is not an intended use of
highway=track + area=yes,
its valid use is for squares/areas
on highway=track, where vehicles drive in any directions

It is typical in logging camps,
where wood is stored, moved between vehicles,
processed etc.

In case of wide and frequent misuse
rendering of highway=track + area=yes
will be removed to discourage it.

It happened before with highway=proposed
and area rendering for tourism=attraction
> It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to have 
> a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that way. 
> Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are doing.
>
This is a mapping for renderer and 
it is incorrect.

Developer of the Standard Map Style
sending this message is not approving
this kind of tagging.

Please use area:highway for road areas
and landuse=highway for area used for
road infrastructure if you want to map this kind of thing.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Silent Spike]

While there is no formally approved proposal for tagging highway areas, I'd
direct you towards `area:highway` (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway)

Definitely don't rely on the standard map to drive tagging practise,
rendering decisions for the standard map are made based on tag usage.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[David Woolley]

On 01/01/2020 11:58, Martin Wynne wrote:
So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to 
discover if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map 
renders it.


There are a large number of things that are perfectly valid that are nor 
rendered by the standard Mapnik layer.




If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. 


That pretty much defines tagging for the renderer.  The map isn't any 
two dimensional image, but the actual data from which that image was 
generated.



Otherwise, why call it the "Standard" map?


Loose terminology, a convenient shorthand.



It is rather more than a demonstrator, it is used in many places for 
actual use, see for example:


That's because people make a choice that it is adequate for their 
purpose.  Part of that choice may  be related to not wanting to spend 
time searching for something better, or to use someone else's tile 
server.  (In practice, the site you quote is probably using a snapshot 
of the "standard" style, and not the current version.  They need to 
create their own tiles for fair usage reasons.)


The standard rendering tends to follow, rather than lead, actual usage.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Martin Wynne]

On 01/01/2020 11:00, David Woolley wrote:



The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what 
is allowable.


So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to 
discover if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map 
renders it.


If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. 
Otherwise, why call it the "Standard" map?


It is rather more than a demonstrator, it is used in many places for 
actual use, see for example:


 https://www.plotaroute.com/routeplanner

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[David Woolley]

On 01/01/2020 07:13, Martin Wynne wrote:


However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as 
evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown 
infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a routable 
way superimposed over it, in darker brown.


That's tagging for the renderer, which you should not do.  If you map a 
highway as an area, you should not also map it as a line.  It is up to 
the router to deal with that.  If  you double map, there is no incentive 
for routers to deal with areas properly.




It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to 
have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that 
way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are 
doing.


The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what 
is allowable.  It is a combination of a technology demonstrator and a 
background map to assist mappers in placing other features.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Martin Wynne]

On 01/01/2020 09:21, Warin wrote:



OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, 
sport=cricket_nets etc)




So what is the significance of having proposed changes, voting, etc.?

There must be a set of accepted tags somewhere? As opposed to any tags I 
care to invent as I go along?


One I could use a lot is barrier=broken_stile.

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Warin]

On 01/01/20 18:13, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 01/01/2020 05:11, Warin wrote:

I would map the area around the road as

landuse=highway.

I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it 
supports the use of the farm it is not a field.


Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. 
Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see:


 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway

However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - 
as evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light 
brown infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a 
routable way superimposed over it, in darker brown.


It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes 
to have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it 
that way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they 
are doing.


So I seem to have answered my own question, thanks all for the replies.


OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, 
sport=cricket_nets etc)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Martin Wynne]

On 01/01/2020 05:11, Warin wrote:

I would map the area around the road as

landuse=highway.

I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it 
supports the use of the farm it is not a field.


Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. 
Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see:


 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway

However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as 
evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown 
infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a routable 
way superimposed over it, in darker brown.


It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to 
have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that 
way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are doing.


So I seem to have answered my own question, thanks all for the replies.

cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Warin]

On 01/01/20 12:20, David Woolley wrote:

On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing 
with mapping every *square inch* of land.


I also don't think you should be mapping in that detail, but if you 
really want to, I would suggest that you map the wide area with just 
landuse, and then do nested mappings of the fields, with the crop, 
etc., type as well.


Similarly, I wouldn't want a residential estate broken up by road 
corridors.


David some want to map in a lot of detail. So .. let them.

The  road in front of my home has a verge. If pushed I would say that is 
landuse=highway as the verge is used, or should be, for foot traffic and 
to provide some safety from motorised transport.


While the road and verge are there to support the residences 
(landuse=residential) I would map the area around the road as 
landuse=highway.


I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it 
supports the use of the farm it is not a field. Hair splitting. I don't 
actually map to that detail. I have mapped a few farm fields .. and left 
the lane/track areas blank at this stage. I will go back and map in the 
access driveways to the house but I will leave the rest .. if someone 
else wants to do them .. fine.




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[David Woolley]

On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing with 
mapping every *square inch* of land.


I also don't think you should be mapping in that detail, but if you 
really want to, I would suggest that you map the wide area with just 
landuse, and then do nested mappings of the fields, with the crop, etc., 
type as well.


Similarly, I wouldn't want a residential estate broken up by road corridors.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Yes I *know*, Martin

I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing with 
mapping every *square inch* of land.
Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most 
renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines.
Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 
'standard' rendering.


On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.


Thanks Dave.

But a way is a *line*.

I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. 
Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be 
much more difficult.


If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the 
left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" 
flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is 
the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching 
things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one?


cheers,

Martin.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Martin Wynne]

On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.


Thanks Dave.

But a way is a *line*.

I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. 
Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be 
much more difficult.


If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the 
left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" 
flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is 
the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching 
things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one?


cheers,

Martin.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.

DaveF

On 31/12/2019 16:38, Martin Wynne wrote:

Here is a track/public bridleway:

 http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg

which I can easily map as such.

But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the 
correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag 
which seems to apply.


Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can 
represent a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger 
than other areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a 
canal for example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area 
between them mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem 
to have anything comparable.


Thanks.

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[SK53]

There is a surprisingly heavily used landuse=highway

for highway corridors, by analogy with landuse=railway. I would think it is
mainly used for motorway corridors which can be considerably wider than the
carriageways, and even then other landuse/natural tags may be used for
parts of the area. See around Colwyn Bay .

However, in this case I think the primary landuse is agriculture, which
works more easily if areas larger than a field are mapped at a time. I see
little reason to add a landuse here: most use cases requiring tessellated
landuse can either process highway by type perfectly adequately, or fill
holes by use of buffering operations. I used some simple defaults for
highway width back in 2011 which produced results very similar to data
which had been explicitly mapped as areas.

Jerry

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 16:39, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> Here is a track/public bridleway:
>
>   http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg
>
> which I can easily map as such.
>
> But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the
> correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag
> which seems to apply.
>
> Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can represent
> a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger than other
> areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a canal for
> example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area between them
> mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem to have anything
> comparable.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Martin Wynne]

Here is a track/public bridleway:

 http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg

which I can easily map as such.

But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the 
correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag 
which seems to apply.


Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can represent 
a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger than other 
areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a canal for 
example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area between them 
mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem to have anything 
comparable.


Thanks.

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb