Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Thanks Steve, good to know about the wiki, I had a hunch that was how it's meant but wasn't really sure. Certainly descriptive for this tag. I guess I could "take over" the fell tag but starting massively use it for bare mountain landcover, but I shall look more closely into alternatives.

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Nice, Anders. You can use taginfo to get "the raw numbers" (quantity) of a particular kind of tagging. What might work specifically for you in this case is to use some well-crafted Overpass Turbo queries (over a specific area at first, you can use the "bbox" method of "what you see on-screen"

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

I just discovered a strange(?) thing with the "natural=fell" tag which I missed at first: on the wiki page there's two purposes defined of this single tag, the first is landcover of bare mountain as discussed, and the other purpose is, quote from the wiki: "In the north of England, and

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

On Dec 21, 2020, at 7:10 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote: > 2020-12-21, pr, 16:52 Anders Torger rašė: >> But what to do if the things you want doesn't >> really fit into what OSM currently is and strives to be... > > We are ALL OSM community. If somebody tells you that "I am OSM and > only A is right"

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

2020-12-21, pr, 16:52 Anders Torger rašė: > But what to do if the things you want doesn't > really fit into what OSM currently is and strives to be... We are ALL OSM community. If somebody tells you that "I am OSM and only A is right" - do not believe them. YOU define what OSM is and where it

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Good points. I think Norway and Sweden is quite well-known for good maps for hikers in the mountains (at least we think so ourselves :-) ), but indeed those do not require as quick updates as there's not much changing out there and so far no craftbeer on the top of Kebnekaise mountain. But

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

2020-12-21, pr, 15:54 Anders Torger rašė: > A local renderer would be limited in use <...> Not necessarily ;-) 1. It could be a practical/visual proof of a "better way". 2. It could be a testing ground for finding solutions to some international (wider than OSM, say ICA) cartographic

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Thanks Tomas, much appreciated. I guess you are right, but if local country cartography is the only way, that lowers motivation to contribute a lot here locally. We have great local maps already. To me the attraction of providing to OSM is that the data gets broadly available in any end

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

2020-12-21, pr, 14:42 Anders Torger rašė: > I personally want to see that the community work for a more defined > mapping baseline with OSM-Carto as a strong reference, used as a > motivational tool for crowd-sourcing, and as it is with the current > provider landscape -- also work as an end

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

(Sorry if I missed a private message. I have a generic filter that throws all emails that match tagging in some way to one mailbox and sometimes I miss things.) Anyway, I'm talking about globally distributed open source projects, where you communicate in text over email and forums. Not a

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

On Dec 21, 2020, at 2:10 AM, Anders Torger wrote: > I'm sorry if you experience it as that. Maybe I'm a bit too confrontational, > and maybe I should express myself with a softer tone, I guess my style has > become a bit shaped by to how we communicate engineer to engineer in > programming

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Thanks, good points and information. Indeed, the fell tag seems to be a bit misused. I would guess it could be because there are things actually named "Fell" there, and then inexperienced mappers may use the Fell tag as that seems appropriate. Incorrect use can be cleaned up in time though

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Steve, I'm sorry if you experience it as that. Maybe I'm a bit too confrontational, and maybe I should express myself with a softer tone, I guess my style has become a bit shaped by to how we communicate engineer to engineer in programming projects. That is the jargon can be quite "hard"

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

On 21/12/2020 07:39, Anders Torger wrote: Hello, I'm doing further mapping of Swedish national parks, now in the mountains, and I have noted that natural=fell (habitat over tree line) is not rendered. Looking into why it seems that OSM-Carto implementors want more specific landcover tags

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

On Dec 20, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Anders Torger wrote: > I'm doing further mapping of Swedish national parks, now in the mountains, > and I have noted that natural=fell (habitat over tree line) is not rendered. > > Looking into why it seems that OSM-Carto implementors want more specific >

[Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Hello, I'm doing further mapping of Swedish national parks, now in the mountains, and I have noted that natural=fell (habitat over tree line) is not rendered. Looking into why it seems that OSM-Carto implementors want more specific landcover tags to be used. I don't think that (somewhat

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On 5/1/20 12:12 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote: There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in the bottom of a basin, and the surrounding area is a park or sports field. When there is a storm the basin fills up and wetland, pitch, and parking lot end up under 3m of

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

If you are talking about a simple wetland you may find in a small pond or lake, It’s easy, but natural formations are often very messy and complicated - especially when a wetland covers an area larger than most villages. There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

> Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they are 'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub... These areas are considered "rangeland" in North American English. I would not tag them as landuse=farmland, because they are only lightly touched by human intervention,

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On 1/5/20 9:14 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff mailto:f...@zz.de>> wrote: I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug, either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both. Sorry, Florian, but why do you

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff wrote: I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug, > either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both. > Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that? I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them! Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On 30/04/2020 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise.  There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise. > There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started out > as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095 >

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On 30/04/2020 16:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the wetland area That’s a “swamp”: natural=wetland + wetland=swamp https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dswamp ... or it might be seasonal or intermittent, depending

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

> wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the wetland area That’s a “swamp”: natural=wetland + wetland=swamp https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dswamp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp#Differences_between_marshes_and_swamps

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 04:36:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as > natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just one > on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks me, so I >

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

Hi, I would create a multipolygon for that. Wetland is something different than a lake/pond. For wetland the wiki says, that wetland areas contain "characteristic vegetation that is adapted to its unique soil conditions" [0]. A lake obviously doesn't (at least no land-vegetation like grass and

[Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just one on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks me, so I opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 - where

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

sent from a phone > On 30 Mar 2017, at 22:22, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana > wrote: > > Vice versa, the practice is mapping the baseline along the coastline. in Italy there's a law with actual coordinates for the baseline, but AFAIK we are generally using EU data in

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

I didn't know about the practice of mapping the coastline along the baseline, AFAIK we don't map the baseline, only their 12nm offset (maritime borders) Vice versa, the practice is mapping the baseline along the coastline. But I think this is no a good idea, because baseline extend up a bit

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On 30 March 2017 at 07:41, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana wrote: > An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too arbitrary > as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use > boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding internal

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

sent from a phone > On 30 Mar 2017, at 01:06, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > because UNCLOS allows countries to specify a baseline separate from the > coastline that encloses parts of the sea/ocean (thereby making those parts > internal waters of the country) . I thought

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

By default baselines match with mean low water spring, meanwhile natural=coastline is tagged at mean high water spring. It would be good define some rules related to maritime boundaries don't agree with UNCLOS, .e.g. peruvian boundary extends up 200 miles away the coastline.

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

I don't know the Australian baseline, this is only an example. Sometimes the countries define a straight baseline that close a bay. Of course, Andrew have the freedoom to use, e.g. the tag description=* to do the mentioned difference. > No, it is not a political issue, the position of the

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana < jptolosanz...@gmail.com> wrote: > An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too > arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use > boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Wednesday 29 March 2017, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana wrote: > An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too > arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. [...] No, it is not a political issue, the position of the baseline is not in doubt here. If Andrew wants

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding internal waters from the open ocean, according of laws of the country. Check the article

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

sent from a phone > On 29 Mar 2017, at 14:00, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I'd also like to consider how to tag rias, so we can differentiate > between a ria and the open ocean. the tag is natural=ria cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

I've learned a lot from the comments here, based on others comments I think the solution to my issue is to use a tag like like coastline=pelagic (from wikipedia "A pelagic coast refers to a coast which fronts the open ocean, as opposed to a more sheltered coast in a gulf or bay.") on the oceanic

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

No, I just tagged the edge of the bay as natural=coastline because this is the top of the tidal range. Even being more rigorous the natural=coastline must be shifted far away towards west of current position. The lower part of Georges River is a typical ria: an unglaciated valley submerged

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Tuesday 28 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > > A waterbody where plant and animal life matches or is close to that > > of the sea rather to that of a river or lake. > > I think it's a grey area, it's not completely like a river, nor that > of the sea. But in this case, I'm not sure, what

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

Initially I was concerned that by changing the tagging from natural=water, water=bay to natural=bay that the whole bay would be rendered as land since that's what the wiki suggests. I now see that the same user changed the edges of the bay to be natural=coastline to prevent this. I'm agree now

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

El 27/03/17 a las 16:48, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana escribió: >>/It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a fully /> maritime waterbody. > > What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? A maritime waterbody are all those waters under the influence of the tides. You can

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

/It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a fully /> maritime waterbody. What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? A maritime waterbody are all those waters under the influence of the tides. You can review article for natural=coastline. The coastline should be placed

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

I don't think it does to be too fussy about what is 'river' and what is 'sea' and what is 'estuary'. Near where I live, a hydrologist would classify the Hudson River as 'estuary' as far as http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90929525 because it has a measurable tide right up to that point.

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a > > fully > > maritime waterbody. > > What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? A waterbody where plant and animal life matches or is close to that of the sea rather to that of a

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

compared to the discharge of the > river. > > More elaborate discussion of the matter can be found on the wiki: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement > > As said a bay is not a separate waterbody in OSM so if you consider &g

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On 27 March 2017 at 21:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > as there's the coastline as well, it shouldn't produce any problem to remove > natural=water from the bay. We generally don't add natural=water to the sea: >

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: > The wiki for natural=bay says "Since bays are generally part of a > larger waterbody, either a lake or the ocean, they should not be > rendered in solid color indicating water themselves." > > This creates a conflict with a recent change to Botany

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

2017-03-27 12:29 GMT+02:00 Andrew Harvey : > > What should we do to fix this? Change the wiki to note that it should > be rendered as water and fix renders? as there's the coastline as well, it shouldn't produce any problem to remove natural=water from the bay. We

[Tagging] natural=bay on areas

The wiki for natural=bay says "Since bays are generally part of a larger waterbody, either a lake or the ocean, they should not be rendered in solid color indicating water themselves." This creates a conflict with a recent change to Botany Bay https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1214649 in

[Tagging] natural=river_terrace : open or closed way ? JOSM Validator and OSM wiki disagree

I have been tagging a big bunch of natural=river_terrace in eastern Senegal. The features that I have been tagging are ridges that follow the course of a river in rocky terrain - not quite a canyon, but more abrupt than a valley... I could have tagged them as natural=ridge but I stumbled upon

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Am 28.03.2016 um 08:28 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 27.03.2016 um 21:59 schrieb Colin Smale : If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate' polygons well, as was proposed above, we could introduce a way to store fuzzy areas without using

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

sent from a phone > Am 27.03.2016 um 21:59 schrieb Colin Smale : > > If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate' polygons well, as was proposed above, we could introduce a way to store fuzzy areas without using polygons, or by using more than

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

The precision/accuracy is not only limited by the instruments used but also the knowledge used. For some things OSM has access to very precise data. In other instances it is fuzzy. For some things .. the past entries has been much improved by new data from other sources (sometimes opening of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

This sort of object is common in Thailand. We have many gated communities here whose boundaries are not exactly known although they are sometimes fairly obvious in aerial imagery because of being surrounded by a wall or fence of some sort. I create a polygon using Bing imagery, tag it as

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Fuzzy boundaries do have their place. Currently we use sharp boundaries for landuse, but often the boundary is really fuzzy. A wooded area would be a good example of a where a fuzzy boundary might be employed. But the fuzziness of a wooded area may only be a few meters. The fuzziness of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate' polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no way of accommodating these regions except for a simple node. I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions whose boundaries are not precisely defined). Time to talk

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Den 27. mars 2016 21.36.01 CEST, skrev Martin Koppenhoefer : > > >sent from a phone > >> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner >: >> >> Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or >boundary_fuzzy=yes)? > > >that's a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

sent from a phone > Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner : > > Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or > boundary_fuzzy=yes)? that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has similar problems (things that seem to be in might

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

sent from a phone > Am 27.03.2016 um 20:50 schrieb Clifford Snow : > > I agree using polygons is far superior to nodes. The question I'm raising is > do these fuzzy areas belong in OSM. agreed, adding fuzzy areas in a way that suggests they are well delimited areas

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

>I agree using polygons is far superior to nodes. The question I'm >raising >is do these fuzzy areas belong in OSM. Using my example for the >Cascadia >(Independence Area) a polygon with the boundary could be used to search >for >features in the OSM database. > >Clifford Did you already

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > well, this didn't prevent 12% of mappers to add neighborhoods as areas > anyway: http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/place=neighbourhood > The discussion was around neighborhoods that did not have a clear boundary,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

sent from a phone > Am 27.03.2016 um 19:00 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > Areas with completely undefined borders should not be stored in OSM. who if not the crowd would be able to iteratively come to approximations of these borders. As long as the existence of the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

sent from a phone > Am 27.03.2016 um 18:50 schrieb Clifford Snow : > > A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about adding > neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many neighborhood > boundaries are not clearly define which

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

ot clearly define which would > >> result in boundary disputes. How is adding a rough boundary for an > >> informal area any different? > >> > >> Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone > >> wanting to add the Cascadia [1] (

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

There was a lot of concern that many >> neighborhood boundaries are not clearly define which would result in >> boundary disputes. How is adding a rough boundary for an informal >> area any different? >> >> Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someon

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

mal > area any different? > > Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone > wanting to add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary. > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29 > > Clifford >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it allows to > estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be better, like a > collection of (existing/already mapped) things inside

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

sent from a phone > Am 27.03.2016 um 11:47 schrieb Colin Smale : > > In the UK the word "country" is also used in that context, for example > "Shakespeare Country", "White Cliffs Country", "Black Country". > > I would suggest a relation with type=boundary and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

On Sunday 27 March 2016, David Marchal wrote: > Hello, there. > At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is > based either on a common historical background, for example as a > medieval county or duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural > landscape, as the Bauges

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Good question. In the UK the word "country" is also used in that context, for example "Shakespeare Country", "White Cliffs Country", "Black Country". As to whether a node or a polygon should be used... Personally I would prefer an approximate polygon to a node. A node may indicate location,

[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Hello, there. At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is based either on a common historical background, for example as a medieval county or duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural landscape, as the Bauges mountains or the Mont Blanc massif. These regions are

Re: [Tagging] natural=wood status=approved?

Am 07.02.2016 19:03, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > I'm not very familiar with how the proposed templates work (which ones are > actually in use) but it doesn't seem as if defacto was a valid status now: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Proposal_Status The status

Re: [Tagging] natural=wood status=approved?

sent from a phone > Am 06.02.2016 um 22:43 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > The key 'natural' was marked status approved in 2014 ... nothing on the tag > list I'm participating in OSM since early 2008 and can assure you that natural=wood already was an established tag by that

Re: [Tagging] natural=wood status=approved?

sent from a phone > Am 07.02.2016 um 17:51 schrieb Tobias Knerr : > > The "approved" setting isn't about usage reality, though, but about the > proposal process. As this tag has, as far as I know, never been formally > approved (not that it needs to), "defacto" would be

Re: [Tagging] natural=wood status=approved?

Am 07.02.2016 09:20, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > in this particular case I'd say that setting the wiki docu to approved seems > consistent with the atual usage reality. The "approved" setting isn't about usage reality, though, but about the proposal process. As this tag has, as far as I know,

Re: [Tagging] natural=wood status=approved?

On 7/02/2016 3:22 AM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 Warin wrote: The wiki page for natural=wood has the status shown as 'approved'. This was set to 'approved' on 20th May 2010. Many major basic tags were included in a list written in I-believe-it-was 2006, i.e. on the original Map

Re: [Tagging] natural=wood status=approved?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 Warin wrote: > The wiki page for natural=wood has the status shown as 'approved'. > This was set to 'approved' on 20th May 2010. Many major basic tags were included in a list written in I-believe-it-was 2006, i.e. on the original Map Features page. The tag status templates,

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

2014-11-04 22:56 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been approved by voting just 2 years ago. arguably it is not too late, there are only 450 uses of arete by now (and 17K+ ridges). Please also note that the tag

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-11-04 22:56 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been approved by voting just 2 years ago. arguably it is not too late, there are

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

2014-11-05 12:23 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: after two years in the wiki where it was marked as approved and active it would not appear as a great idea to declare the vote for invalid based on nitpicking formalities, how many votes were missing for approval? it was 50% missing

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

On 05.11.2014 10:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: arguably it is not too late, there are only 450 uses of arete by now (and 17K+ ridges). 450 uses are quite a lot for a feature that is constantly ignored by renderers. For the same reason, I suppose that some of the 17K+ ridges were created by

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

On 05.11.2014 12:23, Richard Z. wrote: Another reason I don't like current arete/ridge state is that some ridges are very long - and they may be partially arete and ridge in different segments. Having a way that is tagged partially as natural=ridge and partially as natural=arete seems like a

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

This doesn't matter in this particular case, because natural=ridge and natural=arete were approved at the same time. It is about futureproof solution - new values may appear and break existing data consumers. Adding subtags would not cause problems like this. That's why we have a wiki with

[Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

Hi, following some discussions on github (1) and talk-at (2) I have tried to clarify the definition of natural=ridge in the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dridgediff=1104725oldid=998905 Not sure if this is good enough, personaly I would prefer a single ridge

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

I think that natural=arete should be rather subtag of natural=ridge (natural=ridge; ridge=arete). It is opening way for next specialized tags - what will make using data significantly harder. 2014-11-04 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Hi, following some discussions on github

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

2014-11-04 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: personaly I would prefer a single ridge key with additional subkeys denoting properties such as gentle,sharp, cliff ridges. +1 or the subkey variant Mateusz has offered. cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

On 04.11.2014 14:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I think that natural=arete should be rather subtag of natural=ridge (natural=ridge; ridge=arete). This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been approved by voting just 2 years ago. And I think that there's nothing wrong

Re: [Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

Whether to use subtags is mainly a matter of taste. No. Lets say that there is something with four main values that are noticeable for general public and several subtypes, important for specialists. For data consumers interested in just four values version with subtags is vastly easier to use

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? This guy did it : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

A lot of the bay points were imported. Many bays do not have firm boundaries. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? This guy did it : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On 30.10.2014 12:51, Richard Z. wrote: their definition of gulf of mexico is obviously not compatible with our definition of bay IMHO: this has some similarities to definition of regions like the Alps or the Rocky Mountains... Cheers, Michael.

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote: Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ? This guy did it:  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4 /s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg  I might have

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

I think this appears to be the reference Richard mentioned: http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: Could we try an example to see whether

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: The assumption is that a large bay will

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-29 14:40 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Also bays with very flat or deep geometry will result in disproportionately small areas so mappers may feel compelled to do some ugly workarounds if the name of the bay isn't shown as expected. disproportionate to what? water

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-29 14:46 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2014-10-29 14:40 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: Also bays with very flat or deep geometry will result in disproportionately small areas so mappers may feel compelled to do some ugly workarounds if the name of

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

On 28/10/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote: On Tuesday 28 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: I admit I don't fully understand how your algorythm works. I can't imagine how you reduce everything to nodes and still retain information about orientation and curves. Can you

  1   2   >