This is no way to treat consumers of map data. If you make major changes like this, anyone using the map has to scramble to change their rendering code. If there's no semblance of upward compatibility, people will lose interest in OSM because it is just too hard to maintain, and if there is any kind of automation involved, suddenly people's online apps stop working and it becomes an emergency.
It shouldn't matter what the tags are called, this is like assembly code, only the geeks should need to ever see them. This really ought to be abstracted in the editors, as indeed it is in ID. Please drop this suggestion, it is not helpful. It's an unprofessional way to treat "customers". David On Sun, 17 May 2015 at 00:18 AYTOUN RALPH <ralph.ayt...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > I believe that the discussion regarding amenity v landuse should consider > that where amenity designates the actual use of the area as in > amenity=school, landuse designates the general use of the land... in the > case of the school it should be landuse=education, the same as you get > landuse=residential, landuse=farmland, landuse=commercial. > > In normal cartography there would be different maps designed to depict a > specific theme, we called them Thematic Maps. A map depicting landuse would > concentrate on the general use of that land pocket, at larger scales the > landuse would be more specific as to the categories of landuse used. > > With OpenStreetMap everything is bunged together on a single map and that > really confuses a lot of people into believing that you can separate out > the tagging into something that fits. You cannot without restricting the > use of the map. Some people using the map will be interested in the > landuse, others may be more interested in the amenities. They are two > separate and independent themes. We do not at this stage have the zoom > levels organised to show certain thematics at each level nor do we have > them separated into separate layers that can be switched on or off > depending on what you want on the map. To get rid of one discriminates > against those who have a requirement for that type of information. OSM is > only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be > depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating > their own detailed "layer" of OSM such as the Cycle Map, Transport Map and > separate maps such as OpenSeaMap. Once this idea has spread to other > specifics then the tagging can be designed specifically for the > requirements of those layers and the argument for landuse v amenity will be > redundant > > So what the OSM community needs is to reconcile their own specific ideas > with the requirements of others and reach a way of depicting their own > preferences without compromising the preferences of others. Not by getting > rid of a whole level of tags just because you do not understand them in > context with what your interests are. > > Here is hoping we can all reach an amicable agreement and concentrate on > the mapping. > > Regards to all > > Ralph > > On 16 May 2015 at 14:29, pmailkeey . <pmailk...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw <jo...@mac.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . <pmailk...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean !!!!) so we get >>> landuse=building even. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Uhhh. *What?* This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. >>> Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor >>> designated nor segregated for a specific use. >>> >>> I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful >>> alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and >>> amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no >>> landuse=glacier for a reason. >>> Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to >>> have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and >>> it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) >>> That would be a great "oceanuse" tag- there are plenty of floating, >>> manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. >>> >>> They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no >>> man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but >>> those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster >>> farm). >>> >>> I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… >>> *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” >>> or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. >>> >>> However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing >>> the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as >>> such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - >>> but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that >>> “school." >>> >>> That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which >>> currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to be a school ground… >>> and has an *area easily defined*… as a school… should be “*landuse* >>> =school” >>> >>> The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level >>> amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as >>> amenities IMO - >>> >>> or should we have a tiiiiny little 30x30cm squares marked as >>> landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher? It’s >>> just as asinine as landuse=glacier. >>> >>> >>> Which leads us to this statement: >>> >>> >>> So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value >>> in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does. >>> >>> >>> ?????????????????????????? >>> >>> when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks >>> spilled across the map. >>> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087 >>> >>> Even without naming, and using only a single landuse across multiple >>> areas, gives a much clearer idea of what is there. >>> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950 >>> >>> >>> Landuse ties them together int he way we already spatially identify them >>> - this is a “school” this is an “apartment complex”… This is a “university” >>> - >>> >>> The building+landuse for individual facilities gives you so much more >>> together than just one by itself. >>> >>> The land and non-building amenities contained within the landuse are as >>> important as the building. >>> >>> And… the name=* belongs to the landuse for all larger facilities. A big >>> school (or mall or business complex) with many named buildings, pools, >>> parking, seating, pitches, walkways, and wahatnot… >>> >>> is currently amenity=school + name=FooBar School. (I feel it should be >>> landuse=school). same as landuse=retail name=FooBar OutDoor Mall. Or >>> landuse=industrial name=FooBar Works. >>> >>> No single building is actually named the name of the facility - and >>> often is named something else! - so the name=* for the facility doesn’t >>> belong to it. >>> >>> Even tiny schools. My school has two buildings. Both have the same >>> number of students. Which is named for the school? Neither. >>> >>> The ground has the name - out on the wall. >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257 >>> >>> The name goes on the landuse, which includes the school’s parking, bike >>> racks, hedges, walkways, water tanks, tress, and stairways. >>> >>> The wall around our perimeter is an an easily mapped and easily defined >>> area boundary. Everything inside is landuse=school - as all of those >>> amenities not only belong to the school, but support the operation of the >>> school. >>> >>> Are the parking lots around a stadium not part of the stadium? Are the >>> lawns, walkways, quads, and roadways not part of a business complex? What >>> about a hospital with multiple buildings? >>> >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348 >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405 >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038 >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=16/36.3295/139.1009 >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40860/139.03317 >>> >>> Here - there are no buildings (as there are none) - but just rice >>> fields. Doesn’t this make the map much more understandable? All of these >>> are man-altered places designated for a purpose. >>> >>> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.43286/139.25779 >>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.43286/139.25779>* >>> >>> This view that the land somehow lesser than the building, or the name of >>> a large facility somehow belongs to a building (which one? who knows!) >>> instead of the land the facility occupies is subjectively wrong, >>> objectivity wrong, and easily disproved. >>> >>> >>> Please reevaluate this seriously flawed opinion. >>> >>> >>> Javbw >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >>> >> Thanks for the post, John. >> >> I think the problem is the tagging method. Why does there have to be two >> parts to it ? >> >> Landuse=schoolgrounds is the same as schoolgrounds. Natural=forest is the >> same as simply forest. >> >> How about: >> >> Forest=natural ? >> >> or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted >> forest]. >> >> landuse=school is, to the map, the same as >> area=school which is the same as >> "school" or perhaps >> school=primary >> school=secondary >> school=music >> >> The big point is what does 'landuse' (or 'natural') tell us that's new >> information ? bridge=natural would be a case where natural is giving >> information as it is not expected bridges to be natural. >> >> Can you find a sports pitch that's not landuse ? there's no need to have >> landuse=sports_pitch. And to prove my point, OSM doesn't ! we have instead >> leisure=sports_pitch - but it's still landuse but not tagged as such. So >> now, it seems OSM tags landuse on its own whims, is inconsistent; is >> confusing >> >> landuse=golf_course >> leisure+golf_course >> man_made=golf_course >> >> Surely all three of these are 'obvious' when referring to a golf course ? >> If they're not the obvious - then tag differently: golf_course=electronic. >> >> OSM tagging is not logical. Does it need to be ? no, but it would help if >> it was. >> >> -- >> Mike. >> @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - >> For all your info on Millom and South Copeland >> via *the area's premier website - * >> >> *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, >> property & pets* >> >> T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
