landuse=depot?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

landuse=depot?

Florian Lohoff-2

Hi,
after a discussion about retagging road maintenance facilities in
Germany as landuse=depot i got a bit annoyed by the IMHO abuse of
the landuse= key with the depot value.

It seems this landuse value is only proposed but the wiki page makes
people think this is an established tag people should use.

Arguments of mine that this is a refinement of a commercial/industrial
landuse and should be an man_made or amenity have all been brought
up in the carto rendering requests and thus these requests have all been
denied.

Still the wiki page for landuse=depot exists and attracts more usage
or as i would say "abuse" ...


Is there any consensus on landuse=depot to be either established,
removed or brought to voting?

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: landuse=depot?

Tagging mailing list
In my opinion landuse=depot is a mistake and should not be used.

I have seen this tag used (or seriously proposed) for aircraft boneyards,
container depots, storage of military vehicles, stockpile of goods, railway depot,
bus depot and everything else called depot.

tagging like

landuse=industrial industrial=depot
landuse=industrial industrial=warehouse
landuse=military military=depot
landuse=commercial commercial=depot
landuse=commercial commercial=vehicle_depot

seems to be strictly preferable and I used it in my area.

Jan 10, 2021, 11:53 by [hidden email]:
It seems this landuse value is only proposed but the wiki page makes
people think this is an established tag people should use.
or some other page?

Because it rather complains that it is a bad idea
(I have not edited it to be even stronger - I already added complaints
that it is a bad idea, retagged many in my area and closed
rendering request, describing it as 100% bad idea on my own
would be definitely going too far)
Arguments of mine that this is a refinement of a commercial/industrial
landuse and should be an man_made or amenity have all been brought
up in the carto rendering requests and thus these requests have all been
denied.
For rendering requests see:




For alternative tagging requests:
carto rendering requests are a bad place to make them


Still the wiki page for landuse=depot exists and attracts more usage
or as i would say "abuse" ...


Is there any consensus on landuse=depot to be either established,
removed or brought to voting?
I would support retagging to better tagging.

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

Re: landuse=depot?

voschix
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
What is wrong with it? Bus or road-maintenance depots are clearly land-use cases.
Besides that, I think there can be no voting anymore. It is an established tag with 1400 uses.

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 11:55, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,
after a discussion about retagging road maintenance facilities in
Germany as landuse=depot i got a bit annoyed by the IMHO abuse of
the landuse= key with the depot value.

It seems this landuse value is only proposed but the wiki page makes
people think this is an established tag people should use.

Arguments of mine that this is a refinement of a commercial/industrial
landuse and should be an man_made or amenity have all been brought
up in the carto rendering requests and thus these requests have all been
denied.

Still the wiki page for landuse=depot exists and attracts more usage
or as i would say "abuse" ...


Is there any consensus on landuse=depot to be either established,
removed or brought to voting?

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
_______________________________________________
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: landuse=depot?

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On 10/01/2021 11:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> landuse=industrial industrial=depot
>
That's what I've historically done too, and it also has twice as much
usage as "landuse=depot":

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=depot#values

although when I was looking at "what landuses in UK/IE to render" back
in 2016 "landuse=depot" did have enough usage to be considered.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: landuse=depot?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by voschix
(1) this does not mean that landuse=depot is an optimal tag

(2) using the same tag for aircraft boneyards, container depots,
storage of military vehicles, stockpile of goods, railway depot,
bus depot and everything else called depot seems subotimal


Jan 10, 2021, 12:19 by [hidden email]:
What is wrong with it? Bus or road-maintenance depots are clearly land-use cases.
Besides that, I think there can be no voting anymore. It is an established tag with 1400 uses.

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 11:55, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,
after a discussion about retagging road maintenance facilities in
Germany as landuse=depot i got a bit annoyed by the IMHO abuse of
the landuse= key with the depot value.

It seems this landuse value is only proposed but the wiki page makes
people think this is an established tag people should use.

Arguments of mine that this is a refinement of a commercial/industrial
landuse and should be an man_made or amenity have all been brought
up in the carto rendering requests and thus these requests have all been
denied.

Still the wiki page for landuse=depot exists and attracts more usage
or as i would say "abuse" ...


Is there any consensus on landuse=depot to be either established,
removed or brought to voting?

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


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

Re: landuse=depot?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


sent from a phone

> On 10 Jan 2021, at 12:32, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> In my opinion landuse=depot is a mistake and should not be used.


I agree, but with a different conclusion, I’d prefer a man_made tag for this, amenity seems a bit of a stretch but seems still preferable to landuse. It should get a feature tag, and landuse should not be used for features (as in “1 thing”), its rather a property about the use of land (splitting a landuse polygon in 2 should not mean a change in meaning).


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

Re: landuse=depot?

voschix
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
I do not see why we always create new duplicate taggings, introducing additional layers that often even cause additional problems.
More alternative mapping we have for the sma concept more difficukt the job of the data users.

The original page form abot 2017 was perfectly fine in my view.
It resolved my perplexity about whether a bus depot is landuse=commercial or landuse=industrial or landuse=X.
The page correctly proposed to us depot=bus and I was done.
Similarly a large container "port" (train - lorry) with huge cranes and warehouses and everything. Is that industrial or commercial? Nothing is produced there, so industrial is not correct, nothing is sold there, so commercial is out as well. Landuse=depot plus depot=container would fit perfectly.
NB At present it's double tagged with two overlapping polygons: landuse=railway and landuse =indstrial - this needs sorting out.

We also have a tram depot.
It is actually tagged without any landuse. The tram garage building is "yes" and then there are rails outside the building. This one could do with a landuse=depot plus depot=tram.  Again it's neither commercil nor industrial.


On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
(1) this does not mean that landuse=depot is an optimal tag

(2) using the same tag for aircraft boneyards, container depots,
storage of military vehicles, stockpile of goods, railway depot,
bus depot and everything else called depot seems subotimal


Jan 10, 2021, 12:19 by [hidden email]:
What is wrong with it? Bus or road-maintenance depots are clearly land-use cases.
Besides that, I think there can be no voting anymore. It is an established tag with 1400 uses.

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 11:55, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,
after a discussion about retagging road maintenance facilities in
Germany as landuse=depot i got a bit annoyed by the IMHO abuse of
the landuse= key with the depot value.

It seems this landuse value is only proposed but the wiki page makes
people think this is an established tag people should use.

Arguments of mine that this is a refinement of a commercial/industrial
landuse and should be an man_made or amenity have all been brought
up in the carto rendering requests and thus these requests have all been
denied.

Still the wiki page for landuse=depot exists and attracts more usage
or as i would say "abuse" ...


Is there any consensus on landuse=depot to be either established,
removed or brought to voting?

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
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: landuse=depot?

Graeme Fitzpatrick



On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 00:51, Volker Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
Similarly a large container "port" (train - lorry) with huge cranes and warehouses and everything. Is that industrial or commercial? Nothing is produced there, so industrial is not correct, nothing is sold there, so commercial is out as well. Landuse=depot plus depot=container would fit perfectly.

I agree here.

ATM, there are lots of places around the world where commercial aircraft are sitting unused, but mothballed

They are not being scrapped for spare parts so it's not an industrial area, they certainly aren't generating any revenue for the airlines that own them, so they're not commercial, so what do you call the area?

Thanks

Graeme


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

Re: landuse=depot?

Paul Allen
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 22:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

ATM, there are lots of places around the world where commercial aircraft are sitting unused, but mothballed

They are not being scrapped for spare parts so it's not an industrial area, they certainly aren't generating any revenue for the airlines that own them, so they're not commercial, so what do you call the area?

In reality they are dumps.  But we're supposed to recycle rather than
dump stuff, so we pretend there is a possibility they will be put back
into service.

I'd say, given the pretense they operate under, that they're depots, but some
object to landuse=depot.  So landuse=cemetery + religion=aviation. :)

--
Paul


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

Re: landuse=depot?

stevea
On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:29 AM, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd say, given the pretense they operate under, that they're depots, but some
> object to landuse=depot.  So landuse=cemetery + religion=aviation. :)

I can't agree with this (the :) prompts me to think it's tongue-in-cheek), nor do I like landuse=depot, as it's much too vague.  In my opinion, landuse=depot could only be used if it had a richly-developed set of sub-tag values (like depot=aircraft_scrapyard).  But that is "reaching" and I feel strains the limits of both understandability and shared identity of the entity / entities we attempt to describe in this class of objects.  This work (tagging categorization) isn't always easy.

> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 22:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ATM, there are lots of places around the world where commercial aircraft are sitting unused, but mothballed
> eg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/83eefe0f513237ffe4c4d34b704b98cf?width=1280
>
> They are not being scrapped for spare parts so it's not an industrial area, they certainly aren't generating any revenue for the airlines that own them, so they're not commercial, so what do you call the area?

Paul replies:
> In reality they are dumps.  But we're supposed to recycle rather than
> dump stuff, so we pretend there is a possibility they will be put back
> into service.

This, I can actually get behind.  "Dump" is technically true, although "recycling center" (of a very, aviation-specialized nature) seems more correct.  However, landuse=landfill isn't correct, so I still think we might need to coin a specific value like "aircraft_scrapyard."

Ports, with cranes, are most certainly industrial areas:  OSM already agrees that areas of warehouses are industrial, although I have seen them as commercial, especially when they are public access "self storage" commercial entities.  And a port is an almost quintessentially industrial area (often with rail or other heavy transport infrastructure).  There doesn't need for "anything to be manufactured" in an area for it to be landuse=industrial:  I use this on fenced areas at the top of hills for man_made=water_tower, around electrical substations, around a gas distribution pipeline access point which comes to the surface with safety valves, etc.  These are not "manufacturing" places, but they most certainly are industrial land uses.

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

Re: landuse=depot?

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by voschix

Hi Volker,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:19:00PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> What is wrong with it? Bus or road-maintenance depots are clearly land-use
> cases.
> Besides that, I think there can be no voting anymore. It is an established
> tag with 1400 uses.

The point is that landuse is a broad and generic meaning and is not to
be meant to have subtyping or "more specific tagging". It should be a
very rough "what is this area beeing used for".

Later you can tag much more specific on top of that like amenity=school
or the like.

IMHO using subtyping or having a subtype of commercial is abuse of the
landuse key.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Junkyards? (was: landuse=depot?)

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by stevea
That's a good point: these aircraft boneyards are more like junkyards which are full of old motor vehicles which may be dismantled for spare parts or scrap.

How are motor vehicle junkyards currently tagged?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:22 AM stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:29 AM, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd say, given the pretense they operate under, that they're depots, but some
> object to landuse=depot.  So landuse=cemetery + religion=aviation. :)

I can't agree with this (the :) prompts me to think it's tongue-in-cheek), nor do I like landuse=depot, as it's much too vague.  In my opinion, landuse=depot could only be used if it had a richly-developed set of sub-tag values (like depot=aircraft_scrapyard).  But that is "reaching" and I feel strains the limits of both understandability and shared identity of the entity / entities we attempt to describe in this class of objects.  This work (tagging categorization) isn't always easy.

> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 22:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ATM, there are lots of places around the world where commercial aircraft are sitting unused, but mothballed
> eg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/83eefe0f513237ffe4c4d34b704b98cf?width=1280
>
> They are not being scrapped for spare parts so it's not an industrial area, they certainly aren't generating any revenue for the airlines that own them, so they're not commercial, so what do you call the area?

Paul replies:
> In reality they are dumps.  But we're supposed to recycle rather than
> dump stuff, so we pretend there is a possibility they will be put back
> into service.

This, I can actually get behind.  "Dump" is technically true, although "recycling center" (of a very, aviation-specialized nature) seems more correct.  However, landuse=landfill isn't correct, so I still think we might need to coin a specific value like "aircraft_scrapyard."

Ports, with cranes, are most certainly industrial areas:  OSM already agrees that areas of warehouses are industrial, although I have seen them as commercial, especially when they are public access "self storage" commercial entities.  And a port is an almost quintessentially industrial area (often with rail or other heavy transport infrastructure).  There doesn't need for "anything to be manufactured" in an area for it to be landuse=industrial:  I use this on fenced areas at the top of hills for man_made=water_tower, around electrical substations, around a gas distribution pipeline access point which comes to the surface with safety valves, etc.  These are not "manufacturing" places, but they most certainly are industrial land uses.

SteveA
_______________________________________________
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: Junkyards? (was: landuse=depot?)

Joseph Eisenberg
The British Engish term for a junkyard seems to be a "scrapyard" (and others use "wrecking yard", "car breakers" etc.):

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's a good point: these aircraft boneyards are more like junkyards which are full of old motor vehicles which may be dismantled for spare parts or scrap.

How are motor vehicle junkyards currently tagged?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:22 AM stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:29 AM, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd say, given the pretense they operate under, that they're depots, but some
> object to landuse=depot.  So landuse=cemetery + religion=aviation. :)

I can't agree with this (the :) prompts me to think it's tongue-in-cheek), nor do I like landuse=depot, as it's much too vague.  In my opinion, landuse=depot could only be used if it had a richly-developed set of sub-tag values (like depot=aircraft_scrapyard).  But that is "reaching" and I feel strains the limits of both understandability and shared identity of the entity / entities we attempt to describe in this class of objects.  This work (tagging categorization) isn't always easy.

> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 22:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ATM, there are lots of places around the world where commercial aircraft are sitting unused, but mothballed
> eg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/83eefe0f513237ffe4c4d34b704b98cf?width=1280
>
> They are not being scrapped for spare parts so it's not an industrial area, they certainly aren't generating any revenue for the airlines that own them, so they're not commercial, so what do you call the area?

Paul replies:
> In reality they are dumps.  But we're supposed to recycle rather than
> dump stuff, so we pretend there is a possibility they will be put back
> into service.

This, I can actually get behind.  "Dump" is technically true, although "recycling center" (of a very, aviation-specialized nature) seems more correct.  However, landuse=landfill isn't correct, so I still think we might need to coin a specific value like "aircraft_scrapyard."

Ports, with cranes, are most certainly industrial areas:  OSM already agrees that areas of warehouses are industrial, although I have seen them as commercial, especially when they are public access "self storage" commercial entities.  And a port is an almost quintessentially industrial area (often with rail or other heavy transport infrastructure).  There doesn't need for "anything to be manufactured" in an area for it to be landuse=industrial:  I use this on fenced areas at the top of hills for man_made=water_tower, around electrical substations, around a gas distribution pipeline access point which comes to the surface with safety valves, etc.  These are not "manufacturing" places, but they most certainly are industrial land uses.

SteveA
_______________________________________________
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: Junkyards? (was: landuse=depot?)

stevea
On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:02 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The British Engish term for a junkyard seems to be a "scrapyard" (and others use "wrecking yard", "car breakers" etc.):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_yard
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That's a good point: these aircraft boneyards are more like junkyards which are full of old motor vehicles which may be dismantled for spare parts or scrap.
>
> How are motor vehicle junkyards currently tagged?

I'm not sure.  With British English saying "scrapyard" (which works to my US English ear), I'm repeating that (values of, in a key yet-to-be-determined) "aircraft_scrapyard" could work for aircraft and perhaps "auto_scrapyard" could work for cars.  The latter are quite common, the former are not, but aircraft scrapyards DO exist.

There is a distinction in my mind between "wrecking yard" or "car breaker" and a "simple" (storage only) "scrapyard."  The latter will always contain a "crusher" (a large machine that turns a car into a desk-sized compressed mass) and the former might or might not.

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

Re: Junkyards? (was: landuse=depot?)

stevea
> There is a distinction in my mind between "wrecking yard" or "car breaker" and a "simple" (storage only) "scrapyard."  The latter will always contain a "crusher" (a large machine that turns a car into a desk-sized compressed mass) and the former might or might not.

Oops, reverse that:  scrapyards are the ones that might or might not contain a crusher.

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

Re: Junkyards? (was: landuse=depot?)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by stevea
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:09:53PM -0800, stevea wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:02 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The British Engish term for a junkyard seems to be a "scrapyard" (and others use "wrecking yard", "car breakers" etc.):
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_yard
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > That's a good point: these aircraft boneyards are more like junkyards which are full of old motor vehicles which may be dismantled for spare parts or scrap.
> >
> > How are motor vehicle junkyards currently tagged?

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6621257054

ael

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

Re: landuse=depot?

stevea
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
Florian, thank you.  You amplify my disdain of using landuse for more than broad brush strokes.  I might imagine something sub-tagged with a deep stack of values, but I would hold my nose the whole way through it.  How OSM means landuse=* should have a sparse set of keys, it is a thorny issue.  I think if we can keep it to the LOW dozens, humanity and OSM will be OK.  More than that, hmmm, look out.  Just my opinion.  I don't think we want to add values to landuse=* if we can help it.

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

Re: Junkyards? (was: landuse=depot?)

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 21:03, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's a good point: these aircraft boneyards are more like junkyards which are full of old motor vehicles which may be dismantled for spare parts or scrap.

There are ways in which they are not.  Junkyards do have vehicles waiting to
be scrapped, and you may be able to get spare parts from them, but those
vehicles ARE eventually stripped/crushed/whatever and recycled.

These boneyards are theoretically scrapyards in that they can be
mined for spare parts (but almost never are).  They are theoretically
commercial operations that sell second-hand aircraft (but almost never
are).  Practically, they are dumps from which nothing will ever be
removed, although legally they are not (because we have
recycling regulations to adhere to).

Aircraft operators park their unwanted aircraft in a large depot for
when they may need them again (which is never).

--
Paul



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