Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
The footway/cycleway/path choas is the one of the biggest drawbacks of OSM. Here's my approach: - A footway is a mostly paved way in a city. It's a way which was mostly built by an authority. You can walk on it safely in high heels. - A path is a narrow way, which is mostly not paved and was not built by somebody. This can be short cuts in cities, ways in a forest which are to narrow to be tagged as tracks or hiking trails in the mountains. If it's raining you could get dirty shoes. You can indicate that the path is (not) suitable for bikes with bicycle=yes/no. You can ride with your bike everywhere in my area, so I do not use cycleway. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting-(man_made=mineshaft)
The feature is now approved. So let's start mapping mineshafts. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmineshaft lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting -(man_made=mineshaft)
So let's start voting: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft lesi It is planed to close the voting tomorrow. So vote now. Preliminary result: 7 times approved, 1 time opposed, one fun vote. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft#Voting Due to David mds we now also have a really great resource list, which can be used for other features too: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft#Suggestion_for_resource_list lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal -Voting- (man_made=mineshaft)
What negative result do you fear would occur if somebody used[1] an unapproved feature? [1] That is, they tagged something as documented in the wiki, even if the documentation is to be found in Proposed Features? I'm not a big fan of chaotic mapping, where people apply tags randomly without understanding how they're documented in the wiki, or apply tags without documenting their meaning in the wiki. IMHO, everything underneath Proposed_features should be moved into the real wiki (e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:stop should be moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop) and the feature should be labelled with 1) its current level of usage and 2) a measure of its controversiality (red / yellow / green). That would make it easier for OSM editors to point people to documentation. I do not fear anything. I have nothing against another system of approving. But at the moment approving by voting is described as the way to go. If there would be a consensus about another procedure I would be quite happy about that. But at the moment only some guys on talk said voting is silly, but that is not enough. If you think voting is silly, why do you not change the procedure of approving new features in the wiki? But it is not enough to say, that you want to abolish voting. Based on what facts a feature will be approved then. Or do you want to abolish proposed features completely? BTW the role of talk is too important. Why should new features be discussed on talk, IMO they should be discussed in the forum, a place which is much more accessible and modern and not so outdated like a mailing list. Some of the people here can not even handle it. Most discussion get completely off topic after 3 posts. A moderated forum with an integrated voting mechanism would be the best to introduce new features. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (man_made=mineshaft)
In the last days no further problems appeared and it seems that all helpful suggestions are included now. So let's start voting: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting -(man_made=mineshaft)
In the last days no further problems appeared and it seems that all helpful suggestions are included now. So let's start voting: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft lesi It would be nice if further votes would be more serious. If you do not like voting, do not take part in them. There are people, who do not think that total anarchy is the way to go. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal -Voting - (man_made=mineshaft)
You already have a consensus that no further need for changes is needed. What more do you want? A pony? A lollipop? A vote? How is voting once the document has been approved by everyone going to change anything? Don't vote. Just start using the tag. Do we really need to revisit this discussion again so soon? I do not know which discussion you mean? According to the wiki voting is still neccessary to approve a new feature. If there have been any changes to this, they are not documented in the wiki. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Illegal activity
If google or any other company comes after him then they would probably have to delete all data that has also been derived from his work, or no? If it comes to that then work of much more people is wasted :( I think that also the derived work has to be deleted because it is based on illegal content. So IMO such contributions should be immediately deleted. If the users uploads them again, he should be banned. Using Google is also really unfair towards those people who map with their GPS devices and invest so much time and energy into this project. It is really demotivating. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/24 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net: - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd not recommend to do it with tags but either with a polygon, or with a relation (e.g. site-relation) or both. cheers, Martin I do not see a possibility to express it with a polygon. Mineshaft are often outside of the main area of the mine. I already thought about a relation. But AFAIK the site-relation is also just a proposal at the moment. Besides it is quite easy to map a mineshaft, but difficult to map the rest of the mine, if there are no satellite pictures. And it would be senseless to make a relation which contains only the mineshaft. So IMO there should be tag with the name of the mine. This does not prevent to add the mineshaft to a site-relation as well. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Some questions: - Do you think it is better to use a namespaced tag (mineshaft:type) or a normal tag (mineshaft_type)? In the current proposal the first one is used. But looking at other features i think that in this case a normal tag would be better. It's also bunker_type for example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker. - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? There were no further comments, so I've changed mineshaft:type to mineshaft_type. I've also added the mine-tag. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
how do you define main area? Aren't the shafts vertical access / ventilation shafts that lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised). The main area is the area where all the bigger buildings of the mine are. An airshaft could be a single node outside of this area and that's why a polygon can not express that the mineshaft is part of the mine. But perhaps you meant something different with polygon. or the company provides you the information, or you work there. That's anyway not a problem to discuss: either you have the info and put it or you don't and will most likely not put it. You almost always know the name of the mine. But it is too complicated to create a relation for the mineshaft, to assosiate it with that mine - escpecially when only the mineshaft is mapped. sure, just put name=name_of_the_mine like for any other feature. A problem might arise if the mineshaft has a name itself and/or if there is more than one mineshaft. In these cases I'd still opt for the relation. All mineshafts i know have their own name. That's why you cannot use the name-tag for the name of the mine. So at the moment there are: name - name of the mineshaft itself mine - name of the mine which the mineshaft is part of operator - name of the operator of the mine lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
Some questions: - Do you think it is better to use a namespaced tag (mineshaft:type) or a normal tag (mineshaft_type)? In the current proposal the first one is used. But looking at other features i think that in this case a normal tag would be better. It's also bunker_type for example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker. - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
Hello, based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: resource? lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
there are mineshafts and BIG mineshafts and open cut mines and mining in english has its own language to describe the parts of the mine For open cut mines there is another draft. IMO they are something completly different. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining The intention of this proposal is to tag the most important and most visible part of a mine - not the other parts, which are just normal buildings. The area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial. and some mineshafts have winding gear on headframes and lots of other things Having winding gears is the main purpose of a headframe IMO. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one man-made=mineshaft and no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? In the area I map the mineshafts are currently not mapped at all. Also looking at mineshafts in other parts of the world they are very often not mapped. Sometimes they are tagged with tourism=attraction (especially when they can be visited), sometimes with historic=mine (if they are disused), sometimes there is only a note, that there is a mineshaft. But it seems mostly they are not mapped because people do not know how to tag them. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
and no references to surface_mining There is also landuse=quarry which can be used for surface mines. But actually they are not part of my proposal - it refers only to underground mining. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't get anywhere near it. I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argument half of the features of OSM should not be mapped e.g. historic=wreck or streets within the ground of a factory. And once again: mineshafts which have a headframe are very good points of reference. Often names of mineshafts are also used to describe where something is (e.g. somebody could say: You will not know the street, but it's near the Foobar Mineshaft.). Mineshafts and mines are also mapped on many commercial maps. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote: how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to add an extra level of indirection, so that you don't end up having disused or closed things being confused with things that are still in operation. Shaun Could you explain this further, I do not understand what you mean. disused=yes is quite popular and used in combination with many other things. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from the mineentrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way' that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going into a hillside 2. What we want to locate, or map, are mine entrances. Mine entrances to are mostly small and most go horizontally into hillsides. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Mine_entrance.jpg I assume most are too small to map as an area in OSM. They would have to be mapped as a node. I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about adits, that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms. 3. There are plans to supply info on structures associated with mines as part of the tag, notably the Pit Head. I think this could be confusing and people would map the outline of the Pit Head structure and tag it as a 'mineshaft'. The Pit Head should be mapped separately as a building and this should be made clear. I am not sure what you mean here. The pit head is always above the mineshaft, so it makes no sense to map the mineshaft and the pithead seperatly. 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term for the building or structure. Headframe is the more correct term. A headframe is the structural frame above an underground mine shaft (see Wikipedia). Usually winding shafts have such a headframe, air shafts do not. A pit head could also be a building with an enclosed headframe. But the intention of this tag is to express if the headframe is visible, because it is a prominent point of reference. Look at the examples in the wiki. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about adits, that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms. Of course I meant adit and not audit. Some people would call it a gallery. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Instead you should use something like old_amenity=cafe, or amenity=closed;closed=cafe, that way there won't be any confusion. I agree with you, but at the moment disused=yes is widely used and not deprecated. So there is no reason to use a different system with mineshafts. I would recommend to start a proposal to deprecate disused=yes and replace it with =closed;closed=. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed I can not confirm this. All disused mineshafts I know still have their winding gear, only the cables are removed. But even if the winding gear is removed you can tag with headframe=yes. Of courde, if the whole headframe is removed the mineshaft should be tagged with disused=yes;headframe=no. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes. lesi I wasn't thinking of disused, i was thinking of still there, with or without a mineshaft Perhaps, my English is too bad, but I do not really understand what you mean. With unmined deposit you mean the resource, but what has the resource to do with the existence of a mineshaft. Underground resources can not be mapped. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Underground resources can not be mapped. why not? isn't that what a geology map does? I was commenting on the resource proposal really Now I get your point. The resource-tag describes for which resource the mineshaft was built. If the mineshaft is disused, it is irrelevant if the deposits are mined or unmined. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
