New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Joseph Eisenberg
A couple of users added two new sections to the Good Practice page recently:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice

 I think these need discussion.

1) "Check the history of important objects"

"Before making significant changes to important objects (in particular
settlements, administrative boundaries, major buildings, tourist
attractions,long route relations etc), check their history. Who did
this and why? Was this an experienced contributor or a newbie?
Previous editors may have valuable insights to offer on why things are
currently tagged the way they are."

I don't find this information helpful for new mappers.

What is the "history" in this context? I don't think it would be clear
to new mappers - it seems to suggest changeset comments

What is an "important object?"

2) "Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile object"
"Please do not map objects that are insignificant (like small plants),
perishable or mobile (being removable, or unstationary living beings
like dogs or people), as they are not readily Verifiable"

This is certainly true, but it duplicates advice in the previous
section, so I've removed it.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Paul Allen


On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 23:58, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

What is an "important object?"

Going by the examples, I can only assume that "important" means "large."  Large in extent,
large number of nodes, therefore a lot of effort to fix if somebody breaks it.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

marc marc
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Le 30.06.19 à 00:57, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> What is an "important object?"
> 2) "Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile object"
> "Please do not map objects that are insignificant (like small plants),

I find this "important" very subjective, it varies according
to the contributor's interest.
A motorist could consider the bench as insignificant.
A no-smoker may consider cigarette bin as insignificant.

I think the paragraph would targeting only what is mobile (but we have
seen discussions here about how to describe that a park has X mobile
deckchairs) and perishable (although a tree is also perishable, it is
only a matter of time).

a good practice would be to discuss "Good Practices" before modifying it :)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Dolly Andriatsiferana
Who did this and why? Was this an experienced contributor or a newbie?
 
How do you define an "experienced" and a "newbie" contributor? The amount of map changes? The age of the account? The editor(s) he/she uses?

I have see many mappers who do it very well in their first days of mapping. Maybe they make sure they follow our good practices before editing or they have been well trained. Giving less importance to the edits just because the mapper seems to have just started with OpenStreetMap isn't something I would do.


On Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 2:54 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
Le 30.06.19 à 00:57, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> What is an "important object?"
> 2) "Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile object"
> "Please do not map objects that are insignificant (like small plants),

I find this "important" very subjective, it varies according
to the contributor's interest.
A motorist could consider the bench as insignificant.
A no-smoker may consider cigarette bin as insignificant.

I think the paragraph would targeting only what is mobile (but we have
seen discussions here about how to describe that a park has X mobile
deckchairs) and perishable (although a tree is also perishable, it is
only a matter of time).

a good practice would be to discuss "Good Practices" before modifying it :)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> Am 30.06.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> "Please do not map objects that are insignificant (like small plants),
> perishable or mobile (being removable, or unstationary living beings
> like dogs or people), as they are not readily Verifiable"
>
> This is certainly true, but it duplicates advice in the previous
> section, so I've removed it.


+1

I do not believe the significance of plants correlates generally with their size, and while I agree that things which are moving in an unpredictable way should not be mapped (how would you do it anyway), it does not imply that things which could be moved but actually don’t, or which regularly occur, should not be mapped: it is up to the mapper to decide what she wants to map and if she expects the area sufficiently covered by active mappers to keep less prominent details updated or the schedule of the thing sufficiently regular so it could be mapped.

For example there are boats used as restaurants, they could move, but they don’t (in some instances at least). Or mobile fruit or ice cream vendors, which may be there only during the daytime, but will be there every day.

Generally it doesn’t seem a good idea to add stuff to the „good practice“ page at this stage, without consulting with the wider community before.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Paul Allen
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 09:49, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

For example there are boats used as restaurants, they could move, but they don’t (in some instances at least).

Got one of those near me.  I've mapped it.
 
Or mobile fruit or ice cream vendors, which may be there only during the daytime, but will be there every day.

Or mobile food vendors who have a fixed spot but take the trailer home at night.  Got two of those
near me, and I've mapped them.  There used to be three, but one of them upgraded from a
mobile vehicle to a building.

Or a mobile butcher serving small communities and visits each community on a fixed day of the
week at a fixed time.  Got one of those near me, but I've not mapped it (can't find his schedule).

Or mobile banks.  Got several of those near me.  They're in each village for a couple of hours one
day a week.

Or mobile libraries.  Similar deal to the mobile banks.

Or a ticket office for boat trips.  It's a trailer in a fixed location and remains there overnight but
is only present during the tourist season.  Got one of those near me.

Generally it doesn’t seem a good idea to add stuff to the „good practice“ page at this stage, without consulting with the wider community before.

I've altered the "good practice" page to state that it should not be changed without consulting
the wider community.  Joking.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Am 01.07.2019 um 12:15 schrieb Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
>
> I've altered the "good practice" page to state that it should not be changed without consulting
> the wider community.  Joking.


while this is ok as a joke, I would also support such a move.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
Maybe mobile-but-usually-stationary (or with a fixed schedule) amenities and shops could get an extra tag to denote that property. For example mobile=yes or something.
POIs with this tag set could be resurveyed more often than others.

Tobias

On July 1, 2019 11:15:32 AM GMT+01:00, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 09:49, Martin Koppenhoefer
><[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> For example there are boats used as restaurants, they could move, but
>they
>> don’t (in some instances at least).
>
>
>Got one of those near me.  I've mapped it.
>
>
>> Or mobile fruit or ice cream vendors, which may be there only during
>the
>> daytime, but will be there every day.
>>
>
>Or mobile food vendors who have a fixed spot but take the trailer home
>at
>night.  Got two of those
>near me, and I've mapped them.  There used to be three, but one of them
>upgraded from a
>mobile vehicle to a building.
>
>Or a mobile butcher serving small communities and visits each community
>on
>a fixed day of the
>week at a fixed time.  Got one of those near me, but I've not mapped it
>(can't find his schedule).
>
>Or mobile banks.  Got several of those near me.  They're in each
>village
>for a couple of hours one
>day a week.
>
>Or mobile libraries.  Similar deal to the mobile banks.
>
>Or a ticket office for boat trips.  It's a trailer in a fixed location
>and
>remains there overnight but
>is only present during the tourist season.  Got one of those near me.
>
>Generally it doesn’t seem a good idea to add stuff to the „good
>practice“
>> page at this stage, without consulting with the wider community
>before.
>>
>
>I've altered the "good practice" page to state that it should not be
>changed without consulting
>the wider community.  Joking.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Paul Allen
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 11:37, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Maybe mobile-but-usually-stationary (or with a fixed schedule) amenities and shops could get an extra tag to denote that property. For example mobile=yes or something.
POIs with this tag set could be resurveyed more often than others.

So far, for lack of anything better, I've dealt with the "removed at night" and "multiple scheduled
locations" items with opening hours and a note saying they're not present outside of opening
hours.  I've also used building=trailer, since it's been used by others in the past.
Something better would be good.  "Mobile" might be a bad choice as, in the UK, it's synonymous
with "cell phone."

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

marc marc
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
Le 01.07.19 à 12:36, Tobias Zwick a écrit :
> Maybe mobile-but-usually-stationary (or with a fixed schedule) amenities and shops could get an extra tag

somes mapper use street_vendor=yes
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Paul Allen
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 11:54, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

somes mapper use street_vendor=yes

Reasonable for the mobile chip shop and mobile burger shop near me.  Both vehicles that are
towed by car into place before they open and towed away when they close.  Reasonable to the
ferry ticket both near me that's towed into place at the start of the tourist season and towed away
at the end.

Doesn't really work for a mobile library or a mobile bank.  Street_lender, maybe, but not
street_vendor.

Doesn't really work for the restaurant on a boat near me.  It's not parked on or by a street.  It's
accessed by a footpath, not a street.

Yes, we could change the wiki so that street_vendor covers all the above, but then we have
a misleading tag which will not be used in cases where it should be because it seems wrong.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Mateusz Konieczny-3

Do you have any idea for tag name that would overall be better?

1 lip 2019, 17:19 od [hidden email]:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 11:54, marc marc 

Doesn't really work for the restaurant on a boat near me.  It's not parked on or by a street.  It's
accessed by a footpath, not a street.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Paul Allen
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 16:27, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

Do you have any idea for tag name that would overall be better?

Nope.  Not one that works in all situations.  Even street vendor is pushing it, a little.  I'd
normally thinks of a street vendor being somebody with a glorified barrow (hence the term
"barrow boy" for people who operate such stalls) on the pavement (US: sidewalk).  A
motorized vehicle selling things is a mobile shop.  I can't think of the term for a towed
equivalent of a mobile shop, and I'm not even sure there is one.

Mobile=yes|no has the problem of confusion with cell phones.

BTW, there's a fast food outlet near me set up in a shipping container at the side of a road.
Theoretically mobile, but in practise fixed.

I can't think of a "one size fits all" rag for this.  Maybe static=yes|no.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Paul Allen


sent from a phone

> Am 01.07.2019 um 17:19 schrieb Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
>
> Doesn't really work for the restaurant on a boat near me.  It's not parked on or by a street.  It's
> accessed by a footpath, not a street.


IMHO for the restaurant amenity=restaurant is fine and sufficient, if you want to express it is in a boat you could draw the boat and put the restaurant inside.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2) "Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile object"
>
> This is certainly true, but it duplicates advice in the previous
> section, so I've removed it.

I think the existing advice was better indeed, so +1 for removing this.

> 1) "Check the history of important objects"
>
> "Before making significant changes to important objects (in particular
> settlements, administrative boundaries, major buildings, tourist
> attractions,long route relations etc), check their history. Who did
> this and why? Was this an experienced contributor or a newbie?
> Previous editors may have valuable insights to offer on why things are
> currently tagged the way they are."
>
> I don't find this information helpful for new mappers.
>
> What is the "history" in this context? I don't think it would be clear
> to new mappers - it seems to suggest changeset comments
>
> What is an "important object?"

I think I see what concerns that mapper as important. I've seen new
mappers deleting place nodes by accident and reinserting them,
creating objects that are not linked to the edit history of the former
objects. Of course, I've also seen this with less salient features
too.

While OSM does not have the concept of notability, some kinds of
mistakes prompt the community more readily than others. For example,
accidentally removing part of a motorway is likely to be discovered
and fixed very fast (also making some people a little annoyed), while
accidentally removing part of a residential road may take years to be
noticed and fixed, depending on the level of OSM contributions (very
high in Germany, low where I am in Brazil). Errors on administrative
boundaries often show up while converting the data for offline usage,
which some apps do daily, but with JOSM and iD today this is not easy
to do unintentionally. Deleting a tourist attraction also prompts a
quick reaction, as the attraction is searched way more often than,
say, the median household building.

I've often been told to explain certain kinds of changes in changeset
comments. The only way mappers can become aware of such comments is by
reading the history. Thus, reading the history is good practice, in
fact for all objects, but it adds a lot of extra work, mostly because
our current tools cannot display the history of every small object
(changes to geometry, tags, and changeset comments) in a way that is
easy/quick to read.

I've often recommended using note=* and source:*=* tags for the more
important justifications as they are more visible to mappers, but a
careless mapper may make changes ignoring those as well, as they are
not very visible in all editors. The wiki prescriptively discourages
the use of source:*=* since 2016, but the OSM Tag History service
tells me that usage of source:*=* tags continues to increase
worldwide, so I'm note sure it can really be described as a
"historical" practice.

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

bkil
Be my guest:
intermittent=yes
ephemeral=yes
building=no
permanent=no
movable=yes
stationary=no
caravan=yes
mount=trailer
support=wheels
foundation=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_restaurant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houseboat

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:30 PM Fernando Trebien
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2) "Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile object"
> >
> > This is certainly true, but it duplicates advice in the previous
> > section, so I've removed it.
>
> I think the existing advice was better indeed, so +1 for removing this.
>
> > 1) "Check the history of important objects"
> >
> > "Before making significant changes to important objects (in particular
> > settlements, administrative boundaries, major buildings, tourist
> > attractions,long route relations etc), check their history. Who did
> > this and why? Was this an experienced contributor or a newbie?
> > Previous editors may have valuable insights to offer on why things are
> > currently tagged the way they are."
> >
> > I don't find this information helpful for new mappers.
> >
> > What is the "history" in this context? I don't think it would be clear
> > to new mappers - it seems to suggest changeset comments
> >
> > What is an "important object?"
>
> I think I see what concerns that mapper as important. I've seen new
> mappers deleting place nodes by accident and reinserting them,
> creating objects that are not linked to the edit history of the former
> objects. Of course, I've also seen this with less salient features
> too.
>
> While OSM does not have the concept of notability, some kinds of
> mistakes prompt the community more readily than others. For example,
> accidentally removing part of a motorway is likely to be discovered
> and fixed very fast (also making some people a little annoyed), while
> accidentally removing part of a residential road may take years to be
> noticed and fixed, depending on the level of OSM contributions (very
> high in Germany, low where I am in Brazil). Errors on administrative
> boundaries often show up while converting the data for offline usage,
> which some apps do daily, but with JOSM and iD today this is not easy
> to do unintentionally. Deleting a tourist attraction also prompts a
> quick reaction, as the attraction is searched way more often than,
> say, the median household building.
>
> I've often been told to explain certain kinds of changes in changeset
> comments. The only way mappers can become aware of such comments is by
> reading the history. Thus, reading the history is good practice, in
> fact for all objects, but it adds a lot of extra work, mostly because
> our current tools cannot display the history of every small object
> (changes to geometry, tags, and changeset comments) in a way that is
> easy/quick to read.
>
> I've often recommended using note=* and source:*=* tags for the more
> important justifications as they are more visible to mappers, but a
> careless mapper may make changes ignoring those as well, as they are
> not very visible in all editors. The wiki prescriptively discourages
> the use of source:*=* since 2016, but the OSM Tag History service
> tells me that usage of source:*=* tags continues to increase
> worldwide, so I'm note sure it can really be described as a
> "historical" practice.
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen



1 Jul 2019, 18:41 by [hidden email]:

equivalent of a mobile shop, and I'm not even sure there is one.

Mobile=yes|no has the problem of confusion with cell phones.

BTW, there's a fast food outlet near me set up in a shipping container at the side of a road.
Theoretically mobile, but in practise fixed.

I can't think of a "one size fits all" rag for this.  Maybe static=yes|no.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Paul Allen
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 10:42, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

I found out yesterday there are also mobile post offices.  I was surprised.  Comes
under the aegis of street vendor since they sell stamps and weigh parcels so you
can buy the right amount of stamps.  You can also post letters to which you have already
affixed a stamp but there's probably a nearer letter box for most people.

In the course of writing the above, the term "street service" came to mind, to deal with
mobile libraries and banks.  The only problem with "street service" is that a shoe shine
operation offers a service but the service costs money, whereas for many things a mobile
library and a mobile bank make no charge.  So not an ideal term for those two.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by bkil
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:33 PM bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Be my guest:
> intermittent=yes
> ephemeral=yes
> building=no
> permanent=no
> movable=yes
> stationary=no
> caravan=yes
> mount=trailer
> support=wheels
> foundation=no
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_restaurant
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houseboat

Pure fun. Closest I've ever done was a floating restaurant [1], which
had been there for 6 months when I mapped and is there ever since, but
could be gone tomorrow. Also, where I live, there are many weekly
public markets licensed by the prefecture. The main one is a major
meeting point for the locals [2]. The only thing you find there during
weekdays are the signs stating the name, time and location of the
event.

caravan=* is related to access rights [3].

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/560511031
[2] Main one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2267135759
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravan

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

bkil
Floating restaurants, hotels and event halls are pretty common in
Budapest. Some fancy ones even offer budget daily lunch menus.

https://www.a38.hu/en

If we interpreted the intention, semantics and usage patters of
building=* in OSM, we could use something like building=boat,
building=caravan or building=vehicle, but it is unfortunate that none
of these can be understood to be buildings in any sense of the word.
We would need something like:
housed_in=vehicle
contained_in=vehicle
enclosed_in=vehicle
hosted_in=vehicle

This seems to be the most generic term that applies:
structure=vehicle/boat/cart/tent/building/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure#Load-bearing

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:26 AM Fernando Trebien
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:33 PM bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Be my guest:
> > intermittent=yes
> > ephemeral=yes
> > building=no
> > permanent=no
> > movable=yes
> > stationary=no
> > caravan=yes
> > mount=trailer
> > support=wheels
> > foundation=no
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_restaurant
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houseboat
>
> Pure fun. Closest I've ever done was a floating restaurant [1], which
> had been there for 6 months when I mapped and is there ever since, but
> could be gone tomorrow. Also, where I live, there are many weekly
> public markets licensed by the prefecture. The main one is a major
> meeting point for the locals [2]. The only thing you find there during
> weekdays are the signs stating the name, time and location of the
> event.
>
> caravan=* is related to access rights [3].
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/560511031
> [2] Main one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2267135759
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:caravan
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12