crop=grass or sod

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

crop=grass or sod

Warin
Hi,


There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used to
produce grass.

However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will
know what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod


I am wondering what is 'best' GB English in this case ... grass? or sod?


I am tending towards sod, but this might create language translation
problems, I'll raise that on a separate forum if necessary.


So, what say you? grass? or sod?


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: crop=grass or sod

Chris Hill-6
The farms near me that grow grass as a crop to transplant onto, say, a
pitch sell their product as turf.

I would say this is crop=turf on landuse=farmland, the turf is grown for
many seasons on the same location.

--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


On 09/01/2017 21:28, Warin wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used
> to produce grass.
>
> However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will
> know what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod
>
>
> I am wondering what is 'best' GB English in this case ... grass? or sod?
>
>
> I am tending towards sod, but this might create language translation
> problems, I'll raise that on a separate forum if necessary.
>
>
> So, what say you? grass? or sod?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: crop=grass or sod

sk53.osm
In reply to this post by Warin
Turf is more suitable gb-en, sod in this usage AFAIK is mainly us-en. In British & Irish usage a sod is more often a lump of earth or peat extracted from the ground rather than the desirable grass on top. Sod off is I believe distinctly gb-en.

Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers.

Jerry

On 9 January 2017 at 21:28, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,


There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used to produce grass.

However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will know what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod


I am wondering what is 'best' GB English in this case ... grass? or sod?


I am tending towards sod, but this might create language translation problems, I'll raise that on a separate forum if necessary.


So, what say you? grass? or sod?


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: crop=grass or sod

Paul Sladen
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, SK53 wrote:
> Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers.

But a risk of turf wars...?



        -Paul.  Ahem.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: crop=grass or sod

Warin
On 10-Jan-17 08:48 AM, Paul Sladen wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, SK53 wrote:
>> Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers.
> But a risk of turf wars...?
>
>
>
>

Ok.. add turf to the mix

My dictionary for sources says

turf - Middle English (1100-1500) from Old English (before 1100)

sod - Middle English (1100-1500) from  Middle Dutch or Middle Low German

Maybe with Brexit sod is off.



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

tag prow_ref

David Groom
In reply to this post by sk53.osm
Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing

I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.

I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.

Thanks

David



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Robert Norris
If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are compatible with OSM.
'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference on the sign posts.
Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route diversion notices.
Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

________________________________________
From: David Groom <[hidden email]>
Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing

I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.

I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.

Thanks

David



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

David Groom
The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about
the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references.  The
specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths /
bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way
reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a
road reference.  There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag
which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow
reference on that road.  Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested.

At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used.  I did not
follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to
believe that we need both a prow_ref  tag and a prow:ref tag.  So I
assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the
reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful
to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight.

I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
signed.

David




------ Original Message ------
From: "Robert Norris" <[hidden email]>
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>; "David
Groom" <[hidden email]>
Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

>If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the
>reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are
>compatible with OSM.
>'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
>Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref'
>field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference
>on the sign posts.
>Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the
>ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that
>does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally
>see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route
>diversion notices.
>Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B
>Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads.
>'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.
>
>--
>Be Seeing You - Rob.
>If at first you don't succeed,
>then skydiving isn't for you.
>
>________________________________________
>From: David Groom <[hidden email]>
>Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref
>
>Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the
>prow_ref on rendering / routing
>
>I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was
>adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was
>recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  
>He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed
>it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.
>
>I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not
>maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be
>nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  
>other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.
>
>Thanks
>
>David
>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by David Groom



On 09/01/17 23:56, David Groom wrote:
Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing

A map style rather than a "provider of OSM data", but it seemed like a good idea so I added basic support at:

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1957

You'll need to render your own tiles though.

Cheers,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Dave F
In reply to this post by Robert Norris

On 10/01/2017 00:36, Robert Norris wrote:
> If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are compatible with OSM.
> 'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
> Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference on the sign posts.
> Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route diversion notices.
> Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.

I'm unsure why you feel there should be a difference in tagging when
it's signed on the ground. They refer to the same objects as would be
listed in the Isle of White Council ROW information documents, so should
be tagged prow_ref.

FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was
felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good
to be specific.

DaveF


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Colin Smale

On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:


FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be specific.

Where was that discussed/agreed?
 
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
 
//colin
 
 

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Dave F
This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html

Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html

As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to be specific as possible.

DaveF

On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:


FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be specific.

Where was that discussed/agreed?
 
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
 
//colin
 
 


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Paul Berry
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?


Regards,
Paul

On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:
This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html

Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html

As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to be specific as possible.

DaveF


On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:


FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be specific.

Where was that discussed/agreed?
 
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
 
//colin
 
 


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 10 January 2017 at 16:02, Paul Berry <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

I'd definitely recommend using prow_ref=* to store the reference
names/numbers of Public Rights of Way (Footpaths, Bridleways,
Restricted Byways and BOATs).

Usually, I think, the numbering system is on a per-parish basis. If
so, then it would be useful to include the parish name too for
disambiguation purposes. Unless the County Council uses some other
specific scheme, I'd suggest using a standard format of
prow_ref="[Parish Name] [Type] [Number]" where [Type] is one of FP,
BR, RB, and BY, and [Number] is the assigned path number without any
leading zeros (usually integer, possibly with a letter suffix).

So your example above would presumably become be prow_ref=Ingbirchworth FP 1.

Best wishes,

Robert.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Dave F
In reply to this post by Paul Berry
With 31 993 occurrences prow_ref appears to be the agreed way to go. To check is FootpathX an official authority reference format?

DaveF 

On 10/01/2017 16:02, Paul Berry wrote:
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?


Regards,
Paul

On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:
This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html

Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html

As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to be specific as possible.

DaveF


On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:


FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be specific.

Where was that discussed/agreed?
 
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
 
//colin
 
 


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb






Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tag prow_ref

Robert Norris
In reply to this post by David Groom
> I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
>that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
>signed.

IMHO The ref key is for the primary key (so in these cases against the highway).
It keeps it simple for mappers and is verifiably the ground truth - AKA what one should see if travelling or being routed along that way.
As a bonus this is then used *now* by standard renderers/routers/data users with no extra effort.

So for a 'road' it's road signs, although it may have signs for subsections of users such as cyclists.

Then for ways with multiple uses/routes then subsidiary ref keys should  be namespaced to avoid conflicts or suggesting the ref is related to the wrong key, hence prow_ref and ncn_ref/lcn_ref/rcn_ref (bicycle route refs probably best set once on the relation anyway).

And then specialist data users can do more specific things e.g. OSM Cycle Map or SomeoneElses's UK Style using data in the additional keys.

I hope that makes sense.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.

________________________________________
From: David Groom <[hidden email]>
Sent: 10 January 2017 01:17:24
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about
the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references.  The
specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths /
bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way
reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a
road reference.  There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag
which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow
reference on that road.  Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested.

At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used.  I did not
follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to
believe that we need both a prow_ref  tag and a prow:ref tag.  So I
assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the
reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful
to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight.

I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
signed.

David




------ Original Message ------
From: "Robert Norris" <[hidden email]>
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>; "David
Groom" <[hidden email]>
Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

>If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the
>reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are
>compatible with OSM.
>'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
>Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref'
>field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference
>on the sign posts.
>Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the
>ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that
>does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally
>see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route
>diversion notices.
>Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B
>Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads.
>'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.
>
>--
>Be Seeing You - Rob.
>If at first you don't succeed,
>then skydiving isn't for you.
>
>________________________________________
>From: David Groom <[hidden email]>
>Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref
>
>Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the
>prow_ref on rendering / routing
>
>I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was
>adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was
>recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.
>He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed
>it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.
>
>I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not
>maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be
>nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,
>other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.
>
>Thanks
>
>David
>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb