[talk-ph] Duplicated highways
In southern Mindanao there are a number of highways which have duplicated ways, but often with different highway classifications (for example one way being marked as trunk, the other as primary). As an indication of where they are see here http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=124.83883&lat=6.36641&zoom=9&overlays=duplicate_ways The blue lines indicate part of the duplication, though the actual duplicated sections are much longer. I don't feel confident in choosing which of these duplicated ways are correct and deleting the incorrect one. David___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm
Thanks for showing me those previous discussions -- Original Message -- From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" To: "David Groom" Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" Sent: 02/05/2017 04:31:46 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm Of the 3 options, I also favor option 3. For the record, I've been saying that landuse=farmland (or landuse=farm before) should be tagged on the entire farm area and not on individual fields (or rice paddies if crop=rice). See this post of mine from 2009: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-November/001545.html There's also a relevant discussion in 2014 regarding the mapping of individual farm fields/paddies (thread archive is split into two months): https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2014-August/005229.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2014-October/005318.html For the specific case of rice paddies, there are actually two ways you can go about mapping things (once you've marked up the whole area as a single landuse=farmland): 1. Mark the borders between paddies as ways as these are raised lines of land that serve as walls to hold the water and secondarily serve as footpaths (but shouldn't be tagged as highway=*) to access individual paddies. There was the suggestion to use man_made=bund or man_made=embankment or something similar but no decision was made. 2. Mark the paddies as individual polygons. ~Eugene On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:28 AM, David Groom wrote: During early April I looked at nodes/ways/relations tagged as landuse=farm as reclassified many of them as appropriate. Howver , in some places I noted that individual fields had been tagged using landuse = farm, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/11.225924767247454/124.54216374231005 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/11.225924767247454/124.54216374231005> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/16.933969/121.13637 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/16.933969/121.13637> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/14.883274660783613/120.25851326487962 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/14.883274660783613/120.25851326487962> At present I have done nothing with these ways The standard use in OSM for landuse=farmland is for it to be used on larger areas, rather than individual fields There appears to be no approved tag in OSM for fields, (though taginfo <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/field#values> shows field=yes used on 388 occasions worldwide) There seem to be a number of possibilities regarding these ways: 1) retag them as landuse=farmland 2) delete them and draw a single way round the larger outline of all the adjacent fields and tag this as landuse=farmland 3) retag them as field=yes, and also draw a single way round the larger outline of all the adjacent fields and tag this as landuse=farmland. Of these I think I favour approach 3 as it keeps the field data in OSM (someone might have a use for this) What are your thoughts? Regards David -- Original Message -- From: "David Groom" To: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" Sent: 31/03/2017 12:23:53 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm I don't think it will take too long for one person to do this, but I may be mistaken. It will also be an opportunity to look at some of the areas tagged as "landuse = farm", and merge them into adjacent areas where appropriate. David -- Original Message -- From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" To: "David Groom" Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" Sent: 30/03/2017 00:56:18 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, David Groom wrote: Shall I start looking at the relations and ways and change where appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"? What do you think? Go for it! Would it also make sense to turn this into a Maproulette task? ~Eugene ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph> ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps
I have no idea why i wrote what I did in that last post on this topic ! What I meant to write was: I think it would be appropriate to re-tag these with the appropriate highway type , ensuring that "bridge=yes" and "layer=1" are also on the way David -- Original Message -- From: "David Groom" To: "talk-ph" Sent: 27/04/2017 16:46:15 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps I think it would be OK to re-tag these as the appropriate highway type with "_link". David -- Original Message -- From: "Jherome Miguel" To: "talk-ph" Sent: 21/04/2017 13:11:48 Subject: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps There are a lot of bridges in Samar that are still mapped as link roads or ramps and this brought misleading directions when I got directions between Manila and Tacloban, and it is also the problem when routing on Cagayan Valley Road in Bulacan and Nueva Ecija, for example, when getting directions from Manila to Tuguegarao or any point in Nueva Ecija, Aurora, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Isabela, or Cagayan. Having bridges mapped as link roads makes routers say that you take the ramp, or other instructions. I do not know who made such mapping, but it is in the past years and no one have floated that mapping by any user[s], that should have been fixed earlier before it can affect directions. --TagaSanPedroAko___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm
During early April I looked at nodes/ways/relations tagged as landuse=farm as reclassified many of them as appropriate. Howver , in some places I noted that individual fields had been tagged using landuse = farm, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/11.225924767247454/124.54216374231005 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/16.933969/121.13637 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/14.883274660783613/120.25851326487962 At present I have done nothing with these ways The standard use in OSM for landuse=farmland is for it to be used on larger areas, rather than individual fields There appears to be no approved tag in OSM for fields, (though taginfo <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/field#values> shows field=yes used on 388 occasions worldwide) There seem to be a number of possibilities regarding these ways: 1) retag them as landuse=farmland 2) delete them and draw a single way round the larger outline of all the adjacent fields and tag this as landuse=farmland 3) retag them as field=yes, and also draw a single way round the larger outline of all the adjacent fields and tag this as landuse=farmland. Of these I think I favour approach 3 as it keeps the field data in OSM (someone might have a use for this) What are your thoughts? Regards David -- Original Message -- From: "David Groom" To: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" Sent: 31/03/2017 12:23:53 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm I don't think it will take too long for one person to do this, but I may be mistaken. It will also be an opportunity to look at some of the areas tagged as "landuse = farm", and merge them into adjacent areas where appropriate. David -- Original Message -- From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" To: "David Groom" Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" Sent: 30/03/2017 00:56:18 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, David Groom wrote: Shall I start looking at the relations and ways and change where appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"? What do you think? Go for it! Would it also make sense to turn this into a Maproulette task? ~Eugene___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Tagging of air conditioning repair/servicing centers
If they also sell air conditioning units then maybe shop=hvac (used 34 times in OSM already https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=shop%3Dhvac) repair=yes This would be similar to tagging for a computer shop, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcomputer David -- Original Message -- From: "Jherome Miguel" To: "talk-ph" Sent: 28/04/2017 15:26:30 Subject: [talk-ph] Tagging of air conditioning repair/servicing centers I have encountered a mistagged air conditioning service center around Batangas City, added via MAPS.ME, and I retagged it with craft=hvac and shop=trade. But the Philippines tagging conventions (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions) has no recommended tagging for such establishment. Air conditioning repair/servicing centers are common and mostly accept repair/servicing of air conditioning units of any or select brands, as authorized by the producers when seen on signage (e.g. Carrier/Condura Authorized Service Center) and when mapping those, there are no clear tags recommended for such business. How about possible tags, aside from the one I used here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4360912990)? (This is a Philippines tagging-specific issue, so I better sent this message to the talk-ph mailing list.) --TagaSanPedroAko___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps
I think it would be OK to re-tag these as the appropriate highway type with "_link". David -- Original Message -- From: "Jherome Miguel" To: "talk-ph" Sent: 21/04/2017 13:11:48 Subject: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps There are a lot of bridges in Samar that are still mapped as link roads or ramps and this brought misleading directions when I got directions between Manila and Tacloban, and it is also the problem when routing on Cagayan Valley Road in Bulacan and Nueva Ecija, for example, when getting directions from Manila to Tuguegarao or any point in Nueva Ecija, Aurora, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Isabela, or Cagayan. Having bridges mapped as link roads makes routers say that you take the ramp, or other instructions. I do not know who made such mapping, but it is in the past years and no one have floated that mapping by any user[s], that should have been fixed earlier before it can affect directions. --TagaSanPedroAko___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] fish farms
In my review of areas tagged as "landuse = farm" I have come across the following tag combinations "landuse = farm"; "crop = fish" "landuse = farm"; "name = Aquatic Farm" "landuse = farm"; "note = Fish farm" "landuse = farm"; "livestock = fish" Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Daquaculture it would seem better tagging would be either: "natural = water"; "produce = fish" - currently used 23 times in the Philippines OR "natural = water"; "landuse = aquaculture"; "aquaculture = fish" - currently used 53 times in the Philippines I would therefore propose that these areas currently tagged with "landuse = farm" along with another tag to indicate fish farming be changed to "natural = water"; "landuse = aquaculture"; "aquaculture = fish" Would that be OK? Regards David___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm
I don't think it will take too long for one person to do this, but I may be mistaken. It will also be an opportunity to look at some of the areas tagged as "landuse = farm", and merge them into adjacent areas where appropriate. David -- Original Message -- From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" To: "David Groom" Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" Sent: 30/03/2017 00:56:18 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, David Groom wrote: Shall I start looking at the relations and ways and change where appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"? What do you think? Go for it! Would it also make sense to turn this into a Maproulette task? ~Eugene___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] landuse = farm
I've just seen this discussion on the main OSM talk list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-March/077741.html The standard OSM rendering will soon drop the rendering of "landuse = farm". There are : 66 Relations 7,390 ways 71 Nodes (interestingly the wiki did not recommend this tag on a node) tagged "landuse = farm" in the Philippines. Shall I start looking at the relations and ways and change where appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"? What do you think? Regards David ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Residential.
I've just forced a refresh of the affected tiles. David -- Original Message -- From: "Jim Morgan" To: Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" Sent: 22/02/2017 03:55:48 Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Residential. Eugene Alvin Villar wrote on Wednesday, 22 February, 2017 04:17 AM: The wrong label is persisting on the map because low zoom level tiles are not refreshed as often. I'm not sure when these are refreshed. Aha. That makes sense. Always ask an expert! Jim ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] way ID 353779765
I'm aware that Bing & Mapbox imagery may be out dated, but is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353779765 really a riverbank? David ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] areas of mangrove
Eugene Thanks Its so hard to look thorough all the past postings on the list Regards David On 01/05/2016 00:06, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Hi David, Mangroves and wetlands have been discussed here in 2009 and 2010 but no definite convention or guidelines was agreed upon. Please see the following two threads for the previous discussions: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-April/000695.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2010-July/002398.html Based on agreed practice in OSM, the natural=coastline is defined to be the high water line. So mangrove areas would be normally at the seaward side of OSM's coastlines. But I think the answer is between your approach 1 and 2. Mangroves can actually extend to the land-side of the coastline as the ground there would still be saturated with sea water even if the ground is not submerged at high tide. The problem is, the high-water line will rarely be visible on satellite imagery. So I think we just map using approach 2 when doing remote/armchair mapping and then hope that these can be refined in the future using actual field surveys. Regards, Eugene On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, David Groom <mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net>> wrote: There are two different approaches used in mapping mangrove areas in OSM 1) Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the openwater sea as the coastline, and then map the area between that line and the "dry" land as wetland. This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the white colour of the land, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the mangrove areas simply get shown as white, with the sea outside them. 2) Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the "dry" land as the coastline, and then map the area between that line and the openwater sea as wetland. This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the blue colour of the sea, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the mangrove areas simply get shown as blue sea. Early today I added some mangrove areas and followed approach 2 because the coastline had been accurately mapped along the mangrove / dry land boundary, as so I simply added the mangrove area outside this, as it seemed the existing mapper had cleary thought the coastline should be at the dry land boundary. However at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7497/125.6105 both these approaches have been used. Approach 1 has been used for Lamagon Island, where the boundary of the mangrove area and the sea is tagged as coastline. But Approach 2 has been used for the island immeditately south, where the boundary of the dry land is tagged as coastline. On further investigation I see at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7003/125.6415 that Approach 1 has been used. Has this issue been discussued before within the Philippine OSM community, with any recommended way of mapping mangrove areas being decided upon? Regards David ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] areas of mangrove
Totor You are correct in that in general the coastline should be at the "mean high water spring". However it may be that areas of mangrove need special consideration because even at high water the mangrove trees are above the water and therefore (a) when viewed from above you don't see sea; and (b) its very difficult to navigate even a small boat through the thickest parts of them; and in in this respect these areas are more like land than sea. When many years ago (2007), I imported the coastline from PGS for large parts of the world I remember in particular coming across this dilema when working on northern Ausrtralia. I believe we had a discusion on the talk-au list and decided to map the mangrove / open sea boundary as coastline, and if you look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/-12.5837/130.8784 you will see that despite the number of years between my import and the present day, and the large number of mappers who have since contributed to Australian mapping, the coastline still remains at the mangrove / open sea boundary. So there is a precedent for breaking the general rule the coastline should be at the "mean high water spring". I think that rather than stick to a defined rule as stated in the wiki this is one instance where the local community should decide what they believe is the most appropriate mapping approach, and then that consistent approach should be adopted for the whole country. From what you write it would seem the most consistent approach, where it is possible from imagery or other sources to locate the dry land / mangrove boundary to treat that as the coastline. Regards David On 30/04/2016 03:40, Totor wrote: Hi David, I understood the coastline should be at the "mean high water spring". The mangroves I have seen in the Philippines, were always outside that coastline, in the sea. So I map them as in your method 2. When tracing from low res or unclear sat imagery, i usually include the mangroves in the land area (because i dont know if it is a mangrove) but then I do not tag the mangrove at all. Just my opinion... Cheers Totor On April 30, 2016 10:14:43 AM GMT+08:00, David Groom wrote: There are two different approaches used in mapping mangrove areas in OSM 1) Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the openwater sea as the coastline, and then map the area between that line and the "dry" land as wetland. This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the white colour of the land, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the mangrove areas simply get shown as white, with the sea outside them. 2) Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the "dry" land as the coastline, and then map the area between that line and the openwater sea as wetland. This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the blue colour of the sea, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the mangrove areas simply get shown as blue sea. Early today I added some mangrove areas and followed approach 2 because the coastline had been accurately mapped along the mangrove / dry land boundary, as so I simply added the mangrove area outside this, as it seemed the existing mapper had cleary thought the coastline should be at the dry land boundary. However at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7497/125.6105 both these approaches have been used. Approach 1 has been used for Lamagon Island, where the boundary of the mangrove area and the sea is tagged as coastline. But Approach 2 has been used for the island immeditately south, where the boundary of the dry land is tagged as coastline. On further investigation I see at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7003/125.6415 that Approach 1 has been used. Has this issue been discussued before within the Philippine OSM community, with any recommended way of mapping mangrove areas being decided upon? Regards David ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] areas of mangrove
There are two different approaches used in mapping mangrove areas in OSM 1) Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the openwater sea as the coastline, and then map the area between that line and the "dry" land as wetland. This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the white colour of the land, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the mangrove areas simply get shown as white, with the sea outside them. 2) Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the "dry" land as the coastline, and then map the area between that line and the openwater sea as wetland. This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the blue colour of the sea, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the mangrove areas simply get shown as blue sea. Early today I added some mangrove areas and followed approach 2 because the coastline had been accurately mapped along the mangrove / dry land boundary, as so I simply added the mangrove area outside this, as it seemed the existing mapper had cleary thought the coastline should be at the dry land boundary. However at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7497/125.6105 both these approaches have been used. Approach 1 has been used for Lamagon Island, where the boundary of the mangrove area and the sea is tagged as coastline. But Approach 2 has been used for the island immeditately south, where the boundary of the dry land is tagged as coastline. On further investigation I see at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7003/125.6415 that Approach 1 has been used. Has this issue been discussued before within the Philippine OSM community, with any recommended way of mapping mangrove areas being decided upon? Regards David ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Various farmed landuses
Hopefully fixing the geometries in this area is now complete David On 19/03/2016 17:53, David Groom wrote: Its now been one month with no major objections to my proopesed cnages, so I have made them, but with the suggestion made by Eugene. However the exisiting geometry of the landuse polygons is very messy, with many overlapping ways. I am fixing these, but with over 230 ways to fix I wont able to do this all in one editing session, and probably not even all in one day. The affected area is SW of Tacloban, Leyte at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/11.1154/124.8905 If anyone notices the half fixed geometry do not think this is vanadalsim, or poor editing, it will be fixed. Regards David On 14/02/2016 13:53, maning sambale wrote: Agree with Eugene. There are other who mapped riceland as meadows and should be fixed as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/489780 On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: I agree with changes 2 and 3. For #1, I think it should be landuse=farmland instead of meadow. Rice fields are far from being meadows. On 2/14/16, David Groom wrote: While looking at existing tagging of landuse areas in Leyte I have come across a number which do not seem to fit the tagging structure on the main OSM wiki, and I cant see anything in the Philippines/Mapping conventions which contradicts the main OSM wiki (except that under agricultural landuse the tag landuse = farm is suggested whereas this seems to have been deprecated in favour of landuse = farmland - maybe the Phillipine / mapping conventions page is out of date?) An example of some of the current tagging can be seen here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/11.1121/124.8899 I would like to change the following: 1) Areas currently tagged landuse = meadow; name = Ricefield - change to landuse = meadow; crop=rice [1] 2) Areas currently tagged landuse = farmland; name = Coco Land - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] 3) Areas currently tagged landuse = orchard; crop = coconut - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] Are these 3 changes acceptable? My one slight discomfort is that I dont like the way crop = rice is rendered on the map, but then we should't be tagging for the rennderers anyway! Regards David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Various farmed landuses
Its now been one month with no major objections to my proopesed cnages, so I have made them, but with the suggestion made by Eugene. However the exisiting geometry of the landuse polygons is very messy, with many overlapping ways. I am fixing these, but with over 230 ways to fix I wont able to do this all in one editing session, and probably not even all in one day. The affected area is SW of Tacloban, Leyte at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/11.1154/124.8905 If anyone notices the half fixed geometry do not think this is vanadalsim, or poor editing, it will be fixed. Regards David On 14/02/2016 13:53, maning sambale wrote: Agree with Eugene. There are other who mapped riceland as meadows and should be fixed as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/489780 On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: I agree with changes 2 and 3. For #1, I think it should be landuse=farmland instead of meadow. Rice fields are far from being meadows. On 2/14/16, David Groom wrote: While looking at existing tagging of landuse areas in Leyte I have come across a number which do not seem to fit the tagging structure on the main OSM wiki, and I cant see anything in the Philippines/Mapping conventions which contradicts the main OSM wiki (except that under agricultural landuse the tag landuse = farm is suggested whereas this seems to have been deprecated in favour of landuse = farmland - maybe the Phillipine / mapping conventions page is out of date?) An example of some of the current tagging can be seen here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/11.1121/124.8899 I would like to change the following: 1) Areas currently tagged landuse = meadow; name = Ricefield - change to landuse = meadow; crop=rice [1] 2) Areas currently tagged landuse = farmland; name = Coco Land - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] 3) Areas currently tagged landuse = orchard; crop = coconut - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] Are these 3 changes acceptable? My one slight discomfort is that I dont like the way crop = rice is rendered on the map, but then we should't be tagging for the rennderers anyway! Regards David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Various farmed landuses
My only reason for choosing landuse=meadow rather than landuse=farmland was to change as few tags as possible, though I think I agree with you and prefer landuse=farmland David On 14/02/2016 13:25, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: I agree with changes 2 and 3. For #1, I think it should be landuse=farmland instead of meadow. Rice fields are far from being meadows. On 2/14/16, David Groom wrote: While looking at existing tagging of landuse areas in Leyte I have come across a number which do not seem to fit the tagging structure on the main OSM wiki, and I cant see anything in the Philippines/Mapping conventions which contradicts the main OSM wiki (except that under agricultural landuse the tag landuse = farm is suggested whereas this seems to have been deprecated in favour of landuse = farmland - maybe the Phillipine / mapping conventions page is out of date?) An example of some of the current tagging can be seen here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/11.1121/124.8899 I would like to change the following: 1) Areas currently tagged landuse = meadow; name = Ricefield - change to landuse = meadow; crop=rice [1] 2) Areas currently tagged landuse = farmland; name = Coco Land - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] 3) Areas currently tagged landuse = orchard; crop = coconut - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] Are these 3 changes acceptable? My one slight discomfort is that I dont like the way crop = rice is rendered on the map, but then we should't be tagging for the rennderers anyway! Regards David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] Various farmed landuses
While looking at existing tagging of landuse areas in Leyte I have come across a number which do not seem to fit the tagging structure on the main OSM wiki, and I cant see anything in the Philippines/Mapping conventions which contradicts the main OSM wiki (except that under agricultural landuse the tag landuse = farm is suggested whereas this seems to have been deprecated in favour of landuse = farmland - maybe the Phillipine / mapping conventions page is out of date?) An example of some of the current tagging can be seen here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/11.1121/124.8899 I would like to change the following: 1) Areas currently tagged landuse = meadow; name = Ricefield - change to landuse = meadow; crop=rice [1] 2) Areas currently tagged landuse = farmland; name = Coco Land - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] 3) Areas currently tagged landuse = orchard; crop = coconut - change to landuse = orchard; trees = coconut_palms [2] Are these 3 changes acceptable? My one slight discomfort is that I dont like the way crop = rice is rendered on the map, but then we should't be tagging for the rennderers anyway! Regards David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Coastlines - was Forest landcover
>Might be good to probe more. Can you give me sample changesets so I >can ask around. As far as I can see its https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33871982 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] Coastlines - was Forest landcover
Eugene the coastline ways which I am improving seem to derive from an import of IFSAR 2012 data (See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33871982) So these are after the 2010 mini project to improve the coaastline David >As for the saw-tooth coastlines, I'm actually surprised they still >exist to a large degree since we did a mini-project back in 2010 to >improve those coastlines: >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Coastline_corrections > >~Eugene ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] Forest landcover
Hi Firstly let me introduce myself, I'm based in the UK. I've been involed with OSM pretty much from the start, (I attended the first ever mapping party), was responsible for a large part of the original worldwide coastline import, spent a lot of time fixing coastline errors, did most of the original mapping of Baghdad from Bing & Yahoo imagery, and have done of lot of other mappng from imagery worldwide, as well as mapping from my own GPX tracks here in th UK and wherever I vacation. I have recently started mapping parts of Leyte. Initially focusing on some of the smaller scale mapping ( tracing builings etc) . I then noticed that some areas of coastline on the west of the island needed updating from imagery since it had the typical "saw-tooth" effect resulting from imports of coastline data. so have been working on that. I'm not finished yet! Anyway, the purpose of my post to the list is to ask about landuse = forest areas. If you look at the central part of Leyte some large areas have been mapped and tagged for the forest, but : (1) these seem to have arbitary boundaries (long strainght lines where the areas simply have not been accuarely mapped to any natural feature) (2) The areas so far mapped with tree cover (either "natural = wood", or "landuse = forest" represent a smnall proportion of the actual forest cover on the island. My question is, is it OK if as I map other things I extend the tree cover areas . This may result in a large part of Leyte "turning green" on the map. Regards David Groom ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
