On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:46:42PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-01-09 13:15 GMT+01:00 ael <law_ence....@ntlworld.com>: > > > This thread has reminded me that I have encountered problems with > > mapping disused quarries and surface mining. > > > > The quarries that I have in mind are major geographical features - they > > have not been filled in. I tried tagging them as landuse=quarry and > > disused=yes. If landuse really does mean current use of an area, that > > looks contradictory. Often such old quarries are now in use for > > recreation, often the water filled part for watersports. So perhaps that > > is "land"use=recreation or landuse=quarry;recreation? It seem clear that > > there is a problem here. A (large) quarry is perhaps geographical rather > > than landuse? > > > > > +1, I completely agree with your assessment: a quarry can often be > significant after people have stopped extracting minerals. I can be > publicly accessible and used for recreation, which allows us to tag the > recreational function, but we miss on the physical aspects, i.e. that it > has been a quarry. You might tag it like disused:landuse=quarry, but the > tag sounds a bit like an oxymoron. > Maybe historic=quarry?
Maybe. So long as it gets rendered. The discussion about rendering the "dangerous" quarry edges/cliffs does impose much more burden on the mapper. I have actually walked along some of these edges collecting gps traces, but it was not something that I felt comfortable doing. Even when there is decent satellite imagery available it is still a lot of extra work. Whereas, if an area is mapped as a quarry, disused or not, it carries the implication that there may be steep unguarded faces and other potential hazards in the area. Of course, I am not against trying to add such detail as appropriate, but an initial simple description of "quarry" should carry the appropriate implications that caution is needed. The particular quarries that I have in mind also have extremely high "spoil" heaps/extensions. At a guess (without finding the right gps traces), some are well over 50 metres high. These are generally composed of large blocks of discarded granite: the individual blocks can be several metres across. These areas are difficult to access and hazardous to navigate for mapping purposes. At present I have mapped them roughly as part of the outline of the "quarry". They need rendering somehow. If a "disused" quarry is not to be rendered, then these too need a tag. I suppose embankment might be a possibility here. I definitely agree that that is the wrong tag for the (vertical) faces that are present in these particular historic quarries. I have learnt about several possibiliites in this thread, but how should I have found out about them? I happen to skim this tagging list, but most mappers will not: how do they find out about current practice? > > I have the same problem with historic surface mining areas: these are > > major features on the landscape, often with very large excavations, and > > need > > recording/rendering, yet now are "just" moorland or have other uses. > > Again, I didn't think landuse=surface_mining + historic + disused worked > > and certainly didn't render. > > > > +1, very similar case. > As an alternative to disused:landuse=* you could use > historic=surface_mining (but it will typically be a very huge polygon) > > > > > I am tempted to bring up the case of major bridges which are parts of > > abandoned railways not being rendered. While that really is a bug in the > > renderers, if we had some tag for major physical features that would > > be rendered regardless of any historic or disused tags. it would solve > > many such problems. > > > > > this has already been solved when bridges were introduced to OSM > (relatively recently). For many years, OSM didn't have a way to map bridges > and was relying on indirect mapping methods (state on a highway or railway > that it runs on a bridge, the bridge=yes property, or connect several of > those ways that run over a bridge with a bridge relation). Now there is > man_made=bridge, pretty established and even rendered in the main style. > I thought that I had tried man_made=bridge before and it did not render. I have just tried again, and it is still not rendering. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331737846 unless I am too impatient. The old way of marking a tile as dirty to get the rendering updated does not seem to work any more. See also http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/pm-006-1301-woodhill-bridge-0551r_orig.jpeg ael _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
