landcover dune or land form dune

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

landcover dune or land form dune

Warin

Hi


There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover#Landcover_tags_and_related_tags


It has 0 uses in the data base.


There is an existing tag 'natural=dune'.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune



To me dune is a land form.

From the Oxford Dictionary "A mound or ridge of sand or other loose sediment formed by the wind, especially on the sea coast or in a desert."


So it is a mound or ridge ...ie a land form like a hill or a valley.



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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Leif Rasmussen
+1
Dunes can also have grasslands growing on the, which is a landcover, so dunes being landcover would not make much sense.
Leif Rasmussen

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 7:12 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi


There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover#Landcover_tags_and_related_tags


It has 0 uses in the data base.


There is an existing tag 'natural=dune'.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune



To me dune is a land form.

From the Oxford Dictionary "A mound or ridge of sand or other loose sediment formed by the wind, especially on the sea coast or in a desert."


So it is a mound or ridge ...ie a land form like a hill or a valley.


_______________________________________________
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: landcover dune or land form dune

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Warin
Agreed. I already mentioned this to the user who created the tag on
the page Talk:Tag:landcover=dunes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (note
plural "dunes"); t

There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover" means,
because recently there have also been pages created for
landcover=water and landcover=hedge as well.

This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand? Often other editors are unhappy when I add something
like "Consider using the more common tags natural=dune or
natural=sand" - but if anyone can create a Tag: or Key: page, it seems
important that similar and synonymous tags are mentioned at the top.

On 8/26/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover#Landcover_tags_and_related_tags
>
>
> It has 0 uses in the data base.
>
>
> There is an existing tag 'natural=dune'.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune
>
>
>
> To me dune is a land form.
>
>  From the Oxford Dictionary "A mound or ridge of sand or other loose
> sediment formed by the wind, especially on the sea coast or in a desert."
>
>
> So it is a mound or ridge ...ie a land form like a hill or a valley.
>
>
>

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Joseph Eisenberg
Another question: the tag natural=dune has been included on the list
of features at Template:Generic:Map_Features:natural (used on
Key:natural) for a long time, but not on the list
Template:Map_Features:natural (used on the main Map Features page).

Should natural=dune be added to Map Features, or does it need further
discussion?

On 8/26/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agreed. I already mentioned this to the user who created the tag on
> the page Talk:Tag:landcover=dunes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (note
> plural "dunes"); t
>
> There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover" means,
> because recently there have also been pages created for
> landcover=water and landcover=hedge as well.
>
> This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
> this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
> natural=sand? Often other editors are unhappy when I add something
> like "Consider using the more common tags natural=dune or
> natural=sand" - but if anyone can create a Tag: or Key: page, it seems
> important that similar and synonymous tags are mentioned at the top.
>
> On 8/26/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover#Landcover_tags_and_related_tags
>>
>>
>> It has 0 uses in the data base.
>>
>>
>> There is an existing tag 'natural=dune'.
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune
>>
>>
>>
>> To me dune is a land form.
>>
>>  From the Oxford Dictionary "A mound or ridge of sand or other loose
>> sediment formed by the wind, especially on the sea coast or in a desert."
>>
>>
>> So it is a mound or ridge ...ie a land form like a hill or a valley.
>>
>>
>>
>

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Warin
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

TOn 26/08/19 13:51, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Agreed. I already mentioned this to the user who created the tag on
the page Talk:Tag:landcover=dunes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (note
plural "dunes"); t

There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover" means,
because recently there have also been pages created for
landcover=water and landcover=hedge as well.
Just as grass is a land cover, so too is a hedge, trees, sand ...
Presently farms at sea are landuse=aquaculture... so by extension water is a land cover. 



This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand? Often other editors are unhappy when I add something
like "Consider using the more common tags natural=dune or
natural=sand" - but if anyone can create a Tag: or Key: page, it seems
important that similar and synonymous tags are mentioned at the top.

Traditionally OSMwikis had a section 'See also' where other tags were placed. 
Placing more and more information at the top of the page confuses people. 
The page should first describe the tag and how to use it. This is good educational practice. 

    
Only once that is done should alternatives and complementary tags be suggested. 
I would prefer alternatives and complimentary tags to be in separate sections too. 
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Daquaculture
Note .. It may have been me placing produce there.. caution is advised! 
It is not easy to strike a good balance. (Note this is not a tagging issue... perhaps better on the main talk page?) 

On 8/26/19, Warin [hidden email] wrote:
Hi


There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover#Landcover_tags_and_related_tags


It has 0 uses in the data base.


There is an existing tag 'natural=dune'.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune



To me dune is a land form.

 From the Oxford Dictionary "A mound or ridge of sand or other loose
sediment formed by the wind, especially on the sea coast or in a desert."


So it is a mound or ridge ...ie a land form like a hill or a valley.




    



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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
I think yes, add natural=dune to map features.

I think natural means that the feature has a natural way of growing or forming, even if it’s guided, maintained  or engineered by man.
I know some artificial dunes, many artificial woods, many artificial landscapes and beaches. After creation, they behave naturally, as they are intended to do. Plants grow, trees grow and multiply, animals settle in, sand blows and gathers, water rises, flows and lowers, just as when the feature was indeed natural. Key natural is fine there.

Fr gr Peter Elderson

> Op 26 aug. 2019 om 06:21 heeft Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Another question: the tag natural=dune has been included on the list
> of features at Template:Generic:Map_Features:natural (used on
> Key:natural) for a long time, but not on the list
> Template:Map_Features:natural (used on the main Map Features page).
>
> Should natural=dune be added to Map Features, or does it need further
> discussion?
>
>> On 8/26/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Agreed. I already mentioned this to the user who created the tag on
>> the page Talk:Tag:landcover=dunes
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (note
>> plural "dunes"); t
>>
>> There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover" means,
>> because recently there have also been pages created for
>> landcover=water and landcover=hedge as well.
>>
>> This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
>> this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
>> natural=sand? Often other editors are unhappy when I add something
>> like "Consider using the more common tags natural=dune or
>> natural=sand" - but if anyone can create a Tag: or Key: page, it seems
>> important that similar and synonymous tags are mentioned at the top.
>>
>>> On 8/26/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover#Landcover_tags_and_related_tags
>>>
>>>
>>> It has 0 uses in the data base.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is an existing tag 'natural=dune'.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To me dune is a land form.
>>>
>>> From the Oxford Dictionary "A mound or ridge of sand or other loose
>>> sediment formed by the wind, especially on the sea coast or in a desert."
>>>
>>>
>>> So it is a mound or ridge ...ie a land form like a hill or a valley.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: landcover dune or land form dune

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Warin


sent from a phone

> On 26. Aug 2019, at 01:11, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> To me dune is a land form.


+1, for me these should go under natural and not in landcover


Cheers Martin

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

26 Aug 2019, 05:51 by [hidden email]:
This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand?
Yes. Especially in cases of tags that
are

- duplicates of far more used tags
- without support among any editors
- without real support among mappers
- without support among data consumers
- page was created without discussion

In blatant cases like landcover=water
I would also add tag to list of
deprecated or at least deprecated status
and add note strongly encouraging using one of standard tags.

Oftenother editors are unhappy when

Are they also offering some
sort of argument against doing this?

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Warin
On 26/08/19 20:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

26 Aug 2019, 05:51 by [hidden email]:
This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand?
Yes. Especially in cases of tags that
are

- duplicates of far more used tags
- without support among any editors
- without real support among mappers
- without support among data consumers
- page was created without discussion

In blatant cases like landcover=water
I would also add tag to list of
deprecated or at least deprecated status
and add note strongly encouraging using one of standard tags.

Oftenother editors are unhappy when

Are they also offering some
sort of argument against doing this?

In some cases, yes there are points in favour of the less frequently used key/tag.

landuse=grass anyone?

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Mateusz Konieczny-3



26 Aug 2019, 12:31 by [hidden email]:
On 26/08/19 20:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

26 Aug 2019, 05:51 by [hidden email]:
This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand?
Yes. Especially in cases of tags that
are

- duplicates of far more used tags
- without support among any editors
- without real support among mappers
- without support among data consumers
- page was created without discussion

In blatant cases like landcover=water
I would also add tag to list of
deprecated or at least deprecated status
and add note strongly encouraging using one of standard tags.

Oftenother editors are unhappy when

Are they also offering some
sort of argument against doing this?

In some cases, yes there are points in favour of the less frequently used key/tag.

landuse=grass anyone?
Obviously in case that already had deep
and long discussion we can base on
arguments presented there.

Just that in case of obvious cases
it is not necessary to have discussion
as large as one for landcover=grass to
improve the wiki page with note about the
situation.

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Warin
On 26/08/19 20:36, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



26 Aug 2019, 12:31 by [hidden email]:
On 26/08/19 20:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

26 Aug 2019, 05:51 by [hidden email]:
This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand?
Yes. Especially in cases of tags that
are

- duplicates of far more used tags
- without support among any editors
- without real support among mappers
- without support among data consumers
- page was created without discussion

In blatant cases like landcover=water
I would also add tag to list of
deprecated or at least deprecated status
and add note strongly encouraging using one of standard tags.

Oftenother editors are unhappy when

Are they also offering some
sort of argument against doing this?

In some cases, yes there are points in favour of the less frequently used key/tag.

landuse=grass anyone?
Obviously in case that already had deep
and long discussion we can base on
arguments presented there.

Just that in case of obvious cases
it is not necessary to have discussion
as large as one for landcover=grass to
improve the wiki page with note about the
situation.

Unfortunately there may be long discussions on other cases!
And I and others probably don't want long discussions as 'we' would rather do other things .. like map.

Presently the wiki is being changed to promote the key crop over the key produce simply due frequent use.
It is clear to me that the key crop is a subset of the key produce.

The key crop probably has more use because it has wiki pages for its values where as produce does not. These wiki pages are mear stubs but if you search for 'wheat' the prominent return is crop=wheat thus mappers use it without any thought to produce=wheat.

Is there a requirement to go in to all of these wiki pages and explain why the demotion of one over the other simply due to frequency of use without consideration of other factors?

"Any key you like" as long as it is popular?

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 04:52, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover" means,
because recently there have also been pages created for
landcover=water and landcover=hedge as well.

I'm in no way justifying any of the landcover=* tags that user has invented, but I can
see from his edit comments why he invented landcover=hedge.  He either didn't read
about, or did not like, barrier=hedge + area=yes so came up with landcover=hedge to
use to represent that situation.  Whatever his reason, he seems rather detached from
reality and insulates himself with a thick layer of Dunnnig-Kruger.

This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand? Often other editors are unhappy when I add something
like "Consider using the more common tags natural=dune or
natural=sand" - but if anyone can create a Tag: or Key: page, it seems
important that similar and synonymous tags are mentioned at the top.

Even though it may trigger an edit war by this user like this one, go for it. 

--
Paul


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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Warin
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 05:35, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Traditionally OSMwikis had a section 'See also' where other tags were placed. 
Placing more and more information at the top of the page confuses people. 
The page should first describe the tag and how to use it. This is good educational practice. 

But bad documentation practise.  I would be very unhappy investing my time reading what a tag
does only to then get to a section saying "don't use that, use this."  That wastes my time and
loads my (these days, rather limited) brain with conflicting ideas.

Only once that is done should alternatives and complementary tags be suggested. 

Complementary tags can, and should, come later.  These are optional things that can be
used to refine the details of the object.  Alternative methods of tagging that are equally
valid, and equally popular (both for approximate values of "equal") can also come later.
A "This tag is a BAD idea, use that instead" warning SHOULD come first: don't bother
reading the rest of this page unless you're trying to figure out what some other mapper
meant by it because it doesn't render, goes against conventions and we have a far
better (even if "better" means "more popular") alternative.

--
Paul


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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

marc marc
In reply to this post by Warin
Le 26.08.19 à 12:57, Warin a écrit :
> Is there a requirement to go in to all of these wiki pages and explain
> why the demotion of one over the other simply due to frequency of use
> without consideration of other factors?

I ask myself "what would we do if the other tag didn't exist ?"
would we create the more currently common one or something better ?
if the answer is "something better", then I wouldn't put demotion
on the "better" tag page but simply the information "another tag
is more common tag" + the argument why this alternative exist
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
I agree, Paul.
The most important things on a wiki page are 1) The description of the
tag: what sort of feature or property does it represent and 2) How
does one distinguish it from overlapping tags? Both of these should be
in the first paragraph / section.

For example, see highway=raceway:
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=raceway)
"A racetrack for motorised racing, eg cars, motorbikes and karts.
For cycling, running, horses, greyhounds etc, use leisure=track."

highway=unclassified
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
"The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads typically
at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network. Unclassified
roads have lower importance in the road network than {{tag|tertiary}}
roads, and are not residential streets or agricultural tracks...."

And see the next section
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified#When_is_this_applicable.3

place=town
"Use place=town to identify an important urban centre that is larger
than a place=village, smaller than a place=city, and not a
place=suburb."

leisure=park
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark
Second paragraph (first section): "... Such large, national-level ...
parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild
and natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag
like boundary=national_park; see below."

Also see pages like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface which prominently
mention the other similar tags in the first section below the
description,

As these examples show, it's common practice to mention other tags
that might be confused with the tag, rather than just listing them in
the "See Also" section.

"See Also" comes from Wikipedia, where it suggests other articles that
might be interesting. It's fine for tags that are not likely to be
confused or overlap with the tag in question. But it doesn't work when
there are synonyms or tags that appear like they could be used in the
same way; these need to be mentioned up-front.

-Joseph

On 8/26/19, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 05:35, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Traditionally OSMwikis had a section 'See also' where other tags were
>> placed.
>>
>> Placing more and more information at the top of the page confuses people.
>>
>> The page should first describe the tag and how to use it. This is good
>> educational practice.
>>
>>
> But bad documentation practise.  I would be very unhappy investing my time
> reading what a tag
> does only to then get to a section saying "don't use that, use this."  That
> wastes my time and
> loads my (these days, rather limited) brain with conflicting ideas.
>
> Only once that is done should alternatives and complementary tags be
> suggested.
>>
>>
> Complementary tags can, and should, come later.  These are optional things
> that can be
> used to refine the details of the object.  Alternative methods of tagging
> that are equally
> valid, and equally popular (both for approximate values of "equal") can
> also come later.
> A "This tag is a BAD idea, use that instead" warning SHOULD come first:
> don't bother
> reading the rest of this page unless you're trying to figure out what some
> other mapper
> meant by it because it doesn't render, goes against conventions and we have
> a far
> better (even if "better" means "more popular") alternative.
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Paul Allen
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 13:18, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree, Paul.
The most important things on a wiki page are 1) The description of the
tag: what sort of feature or property does it represent and 2) How
does one distinguish it from overlapping tags? Both of these should be
in the first paragraph / section.

For example, see highway=raceway:
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=raceway)
"A racetrack for motorised racing, eg cars, motorbikes and karts.
For cycling, running, horses, greyhounds etc, use leisure=track."

highway=unclassified
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
"The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads typically
at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network. Unclassified
roads have lower importance in the road network than {{tag|tertiary}}
roads, and are not residential streets or agricultural tracks...."

For those examples, that is OK.  But those are along the lines of "this
tag applies to this particular situation, there are similar situations where
a different tag should be used."  In the case of landcover=hedge it's
more of "This is a bad tag.  Use this instead." (I paraphrase, you'd
phrase it more diplomatically) and should be in its own section right
at the very start.  With a warning icon.  Because once you know that,
there is no point reading the rest of it.

--
Paul


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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Joseph Eisenberg
Yes, I agree that for something like landcover=hedge an even stronger
warning is needed.

Some context for why Warin and I are talking about this: The second
section of the key page  Key:produce has long mentioned the
differences between produce=* and product=*.

I added to that section, mentioning that crop=* is used more
frequently than produce=* to specify the annual crops grown on
farmland, and trees=*, used more frequently than produce=* to specify
the trees found in an orchard. I probably should have mentioned that
aquaculture=* is the more common tag to specify the type of organisim
in a landuse=aquaculture feature (e.g. shrimp).

But this addition was first reverted, and after I restored it, now it
has been moved it to a "See Also" section. I disagree with this. if we
are going to mention the difference between produce=* and product=*,
there should be a mention of the other tags, otherwise it appears that
product=* is the only similar or overlapping or synonymous tag that
needs to be considered before picking produce=*.

There was also a statement added that "crop=* can not be used for all
produce=*, but produce=* can be used for all crop=*" which is not
accurate, based on usage of the tags in the database.

I would prefer that a proposal be made to deprecate a key (eg to
replace crop=*, trees=* and aquaculture=* with produce=*), if this is
the intention, rather than removing or de-emphasizing factual
information that does not fit a certain narrative.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:produce#Crop_should_not_be_added_to_the_disambiguation_of_produce_vs_product_section

On 8/26/19, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 13:18, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree, Paul.
>> The most important things on a wiki page are 1) The description of the
>> tag: what sort of feature or property does it represent and 2) How
>> does one distinguish it from overlapping tags? Both of these should be
>> in the first paragraph / section.
>>
>> For example, see highway=raceway:
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=raceway)
>> "A racetrack for motorised racing, eg cars, motorbikes and karts.
>> For cycling, running, horses, greyhounds etc, use leisure=track."
>>
>> highway=unclassified
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>> "The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads typically
>> at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network. Unclassified
>> roads have lower importance in the road network than {{tag|tertiary}}
>> roads, and are not residential streets or agricultural tracks...."
>>
>
> For those examples, that is OK.  But those are along the lines of "this
> tag applies to this particular situation, there are similar situations
> where
> a different tag should be used."  In the case of landcover=hedge it's
> more of "This is a bad tag.  Use this instead." (I paraphrase, you'd
> phrase it more diplomatically) and should be in its own section right
> at the very start.  With a warning icon.  Because once you know that,
> there is no point reading the rest of it.
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Warin
On 26/08/19 23:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> Yes, I agree that for something like landcover=hedge an even stronger
> warning is needed.
>
> Some context for why Warin and I are talking about this: The second
> section of the key page  Key:produce has long mentioned the
> differences between produce=* and product=*.
>
> I added to that section, mentioning that crop=* is used more
> frequently than produce=* to specify the annual crops grown on
> farmland, and trees=*, used more frequently than produce=* to specify
> the trees found in an orchard. I probably should have mentioned that
> aquaculture=* is the more common tag to specify the type of organisim
> in a landuse=aquaculture feature (e.g. shrimp).
>
> But this addition was first reverted, and after I restored it, now it
> has been moved it to a "See Also" section. I disagree with this. if we
> are going to mention the difference between produce=* and product=*,
> there should be a mention of the other tags, otherwise it appears that
> product=* is the only similar or overlapping or synonymous tag that
> needs to be considered before picking produce=*.

The addition was between the 'disambiguation of produce and product' and external links that give further information on the 'disambiguation of produce and product'.
As such it broke the information structure and the function of that section.

If cop and tree needs to be mentioned high in the order of the produce page then produce needs to be similarly mentioned on the crop and tree page.

>
> There was also a statement added that "crop=* can not be used for all
> produce=*, but produce=* can be used for all crop=*" which is not
> accurate, based on usage of the tags in the database.

Based on the descriptions of 'crop' and 'produce', 'crop' is a subset of 'produce'. Not a matter of frequency of occurrence.

>
> I would prefer that a proposal be made to deprecate a key (eg to
> replace crop=*, trees=* and aquaculture=* with produce=*), if this is
> the intention, rather than removing or de-emphasizing factual
> information that does not fit a certain narrative.

Then propose it.


>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:produce#Crop_should_not_be_added_to_the_disambiguation_of_produce_vs_product_section
>
> On 8/26/19, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 13:18, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, Paul.
>>> The most important things on a wiki page are 1) The description of the
>>> tag: what sort of feature or property does it represent and 2) How
>>> does one distinguish it from overlapping tags? Both of these should be
>>> in the first paragraph / section.
>>>
>>> For example, see highway=raceway:
>>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=raceway)
>>> "A racetrack for motorised racing, eg cars, motorbikes and karts.
>>> For cycling, running, horses, greyhounds etc, use leisure=track."
>>>
>>> highway=unclassified
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>>> "The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads typically
>>> at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network. Unclassified
>>> roads have lower importance in the road network than {{tag|tertiary}}
>>> roads, and are not residential streets or agricultural tracks...."
>>>
>> For those examples, that is OK.  But those are along the lines of "this
>> tag applies to this particular situation, there are similar situations
>> where
>> a different tag should be used."  In the case of landcover=hedge it's
>> more of "This is a bad tag.  Use this instead." (I paraphrase, you'd
>> phrase it more diplomatically) and should be in its own section right
>> at the very start.  With a warning icon.  Because once you know that,
>> there is no point reading the rest of it.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: landcover dune or land form dune

Warin
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 26/08/19 21:27, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 04:52, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover" means,
because recently there have also been pages created for
landcover=water and landcover=hedge as well.

I'm in no way justifying any of the landcover=* tags that user has invented, but I can
see from his edit comments why he invented landcover=hedge.  He either didn't read
about, or did not like, barrier=hedge + area=yes so came up with landcover=hedge to
use to represent that situation.  Whatever his reason, he seems rather detached from
reality and insulates himself with a thick layer of Dunnnig-Kruger.

This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like
this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune,
natural=sand? Often other editors are unhappy when I add something
like "Consider using the more common tags natural=dune or
natural=sand" - but if anyone can create a Tag: or Key: page, it seems
important that similar and synonymous tags are mentioned at the top.
As this page presents the values as a table then possibly the alternate tags can be a separate column in the table?
Should these alternative also be presented in a similar fashion on the pages presented as alternatives?

Even though it may trigger an edit war by this user like this one, go for it. 


Think the user has gained some perspective..
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=760094#p760094

So removal of landcover=dune might 'succeed'.

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

Re: landcover dune or land form dune

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:20, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, I agree that for something like landcover=hedge an even stronger
warning is needed.

Ironically, the stronger warning is necessary not because landcover=hedge is inherently
bad but because it's not.  Back in the day, when barrier=hedge + area=yes was
proposed (if it was formally proposed), if somebody had suggested landcover=hedge
instead it might have been accepted as better.  Who am I kidding?  If both those
alternatives had been suggested at the same time, we'd probably still be arguing over
them. :)

If there were a formal proposal to introduce landcover=hedge and deprecate
barrier=hedge + area=yes it might even succeed, although I doubt it.  There are
problems with landcover=hedge:

1) There is an existing, accepted way of doing the same thing.

2) It doesn't render on standard carto.  Some people don't care about that, but I find
it a useful way to check if I've made an error of some sort.  After all, that is the reason
standard carto exists: to check what one has mapped.  Also, for those of us who see
OSM as more than an intellectual exercise but wish to produce a map that is useful,
we prefer that large obstacles appear on the map.

3) Editors don't support it.  Of course, that is at the whim of the authors of those editors
but they probably won't ever support it because there is an existing alternative.

So it needs a strong warning.  Up front.  Before anybody spends time trying to figure out
what it does and how to use it before getting to the warning telling them not to use it.

--
Paul


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