start_date variants

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

start_date variants

Stephan Bösch-Plepelits-2
Hi!

I have some thoughts in the start_date tag, as I find it a bit too vague -
meaning start of what?

Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
much older, it was built in 1725: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535

An option would be to prefix start_date with the key of the indicating tag,
e.g. amenity:start_date would describe the start_date of the current
amenity. So, non-prefixed start_date would apply to all other tags.

This seems to be quite popular anyway, but I don't know if this ever has
been agreed upon - at least it's not documented as such:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=start_date

For the museum, which I mentioned before, I used the following tags:
- start_date=2011
- building:start_date=1725

Other remarks:

It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction -
often construction starts many years before the building is finshed:
Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain
are famous examples. How to tag this? Maybe: construction:start_date?

Any thougths on this?

greetings,
        Stephan

PS: OpenStreetBrowser has a category which shows building:start_date resp.
start_date: https://www.openstreetbrowser.org/#categories=buildings-start_date

PS: I even found, that people translate 'start_date' by using a language
suffix (e.g. start_date:fr, start_date:ja):
- https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/start_date%3Afr#values
- https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/start_date%3Aja#values
I wrote a node module which can translate start_date values (English,
German, French available). Pull requests welcome!
https://github.com/plepe/openstreetmap-date-format
--
Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich
,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Stephan Bösch-Plepelits  ❤ code ❤ urbanism ❤ free software ❤ cycling |
| Projects:                                                            |
| > OpenStreetMap: openstreetbrowser.org > openstreetmap.at            |
| > Urbanism: Radlobby Wien                                            |
| Contact:                                                             |
| > Mail: [hidden email] > Blog: plepe.at > Code: github.com/plepe |
| > Twitter: twitter.com/plepe > Jabber: [hidden email]               |
| > Mastodon: @[hidden email]                                       |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

signature.asc (828 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: start_date variants

Stephan Bösch-Plepelits-2
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:03:01AM +0100, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> PS: I even found, that people translate 'start_date' by using a language
> suffix (e.g. start_date:fr, start_date:ja):
> - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/start_date%3Afr#values
> - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/start_date%3Aja#values
It's even worse. People use 'start_date:fr' and 'start_date:ja' instead of
'start_date':

- I found 134 objects with 'start_date:fr' and without 'start_date'. Only
  one object which has both (with different values):
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42463151
- 45 objects with 'start_date:ja' and without 'start_date'. 141 with both.

greetings,
        Stephan
--
Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich
,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Stephan Bösch-Plepelits  ❤ code ❤ urbanism ❤ free software ❤ cycling |
| Projects:                                                            |
| > OpenStreetMap: openstreetbrowser.org > openstreetmap.at            |
| > Urbanism: Radlobby Wien                                            |
| Contact:                                                             |
| > Mail: [hidden email] > Blog: plepe.at > Code: github.com/plepe |
| > Twitter: twitter.com/plepe > Jabber: [hidden email]               |
| > Mastodon: @[hidden email]                                       |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

signature.asc (828 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: start_date variants

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Stephan Bösch-Plepelits-2
Sounds solid and already used quite a bit.

But wait, is it start_date:somekey or somekey:start_date?

Tobias

On February 15, 2019 11:03:01 AM GMT+01:00, "Stephan Bösch-Plepelits" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>I have some thoughts in the start_date tag, as I find it a bit too
>vague -
>meaning start of what?
>
>Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building
>is
>much older, it was built in 1725:
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535
>
>An option would be to prefix start_date with the key of the indicating
>tag,
>e.g. amenity:start_date would describe the start_date of the current
>amenity. So, non-prefixed start_date would apply to all other tags.
>
>This seems to be quite popular anyway, but I don't know if this ever
>has
>been agreed upon - at least it's not documented as such:
>https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=start_date
>
>For the museum, which I mentioned before, I used the following tags:
>- start_date=2011
>- building:start_date=1725
>
>Other remarks:
>
>It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of
>construction -
>often construction starts many years before the building is finshed:
>Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona,
>Spain
>are famous examples. How to tag this? Maybe: construction:start_date?
>
>Any thougths on this?
>
>greetings,
> Stephan
>
>PS: OpenStreetBrowser has a category which shows building:start_date
>resp.
>start_date:
>https://www.openstreetbrowser.org/#categories=buildings-start_date
>
>PS: I even found, that people translate 'start_date' by using a
>language
>suffix (e.g. start_date:fr, start_date:ja):
>- https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/start_date%3Afr#values
>- https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/start_date%3Aja#values
>I wrote a node module which can translate start_date values (English,
>German, French available). Pull requests welcome!
>https://github.com/plepe/openstreetmap-date-format

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

Re: start_date variants

Stephan Bösch-Plepelits-2
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:07:09PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Sounds solid and already used quite a bit.
>
> But wait, is it start_date:somekey or somekey:start_date?
>
I would say somekey:start_date, because - in the case of buildings you also
have:
* building:levels=3
* building:start_date=1990

It's - according to taginfo - more common, e.g.:
  building:start_date 156 times
  start_date:building 18 times
  name:start_date 169 times
  start_date:name 55 times
  railway:start_date 745
  start_date:railway 3087 (so that contradicts my argument)

greetings,
        Stephan
--
Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich
,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Stephan Bösch-Plepelits  ❤ code ❤ urbanism ❤ free software ❤ cycling |
| Projects:                                                            |
| > OpenStreetMap: openstreetbrowser.org > openstreetmap.at            |
| > Urbanism: Radlobby Wien                                            |
| Contact:                                                             |
| > Mail: [hidden email] > Blog: plepe.at > Code: github.com/plepe |
| > Twitter: twitter.com/plepe > Jabber: [hidden email]               |
| > Mastodon: @[hidden email]                                       |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

signature.asc (828 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: start_date variants

Anton Klim
I believe there was an (failed? Undocumented?) attempt to make building:buildyear a thing, but haven’t seen it used for a while.


> 15 февр. 2019 г., в 14:44, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:07:09PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>> Sounds solid and already used quite a bit.
>>
>> But wait, is it start_date:somekey or somekey:start_date?
>>
> I would say somekey:start_date, because - in the case of buildings you also
> have:
> * building:levels=3
> * building:start_date=1990
>
> It's - according to taginfo - more common, e.g.:
>  building:start_date 156 times
>  start_date:building 18 times
>  name:start_date 169 times
>  start_date:name 55 times
>  railway:start_date 745
>  start_date:railway 3087 (so that contradicts my argument)
>
> greetings,
>    Stephan
> --
> Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich
> ,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | Stephan Bösch-Plepelits  ❤ code ❤ urbanism ❤ free software ❤ cycling |
> | Projects:                                                            |
> | > OpenStreetMap: openstreetbrowser.org > openstreetmap.at            |
> | > Urbanism: Radlobby Wien                                            |
> | Contact:                                                             |
> | > Mail: [hidden email] > Blog: plepe.at > Code: github.com/plepe |
> | > Twitter: twitter.com/plepe > Jabber: [hidden email]               |
> | > Mastodon: @[hidden email]                                       |
> `----------------------------------------------------------------------'
> _______________________________________________
> 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: start_date variants

Sergio Manzi

Actually building:buildyear is of much more widespread use than building:start_date:

that's a 12.6:1 proportion...

The key is documented in the IndoorOSM proposal [1] and in a wiki page of which I fail to understand the meaning [2].

Sergio


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/IndoorOSM

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2952


On 2019-02-16 10:39, Anton Klim wrote:
I believe there was an (failed? Undocumented?) attempt to make building:buildyear a thing, but haven’t seen it used for a while. 

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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: start_date variants

Anton Klim
I think those would mostly be historical uses. Considering it’s part of an abandoned proposal, don’t think there would be much new entries. 
Plus, buildyear implies you can specify a year, instead of a date, like you can for start_date and its possible offshoots. 

Ant

16 февр. 2019 г., в 10:22, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> написал(а):

Actually building:buildyear is of much more widespread use than building:start_date:

that's a 12.6:1 proportion...

The key is documented in the IndoorOSM proposal [1] and in a wiki page of which I fail to understand the meaning [2].

Sergio


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/IndoorOSM

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2952


On 2019-02-16 10:39, Anton Klim wrote:
I believe there was an (failed? Undocumented?) attempt to make building:buildyear a thing, but haven’t seen it used for a while. 
_______________________________________________
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: start_date variants

Richard Z.
In reply to this post by Stephan Bösch-Plepelits-2
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:03:01AM +0100, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I have some thoughts in the start_date tag, as I find it a bit too vague -
> meaning start of what?
>
> Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
> much older, it was built in 1725: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535
>
> An option would be to prefix start_date with the key of the indicating tag,
> e.g. amenity:start_date would describe the start_date of the current
> amenity. So, non-prefixed start_date would apply to all other tags.

exactly.


> This seems to be quite popular anyway, but I don't know if this ever has
> been agreed upon - at least it's not documented as such:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=start_date
>
> For the museum, which I mentioned before, I used the following tags:
> - start_date=2011
> - building:start_date=1725

another variant has been documented:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Date_namespace

>
> Other remarks:
>
> It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction -
> often construction starts many years before the building is finshed:
> Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain
> are famous examples. How to tag this? Maybe: construction:start_date?
>
> Any thougths on this?

you could map what was there at any particular time but I think it is better
to provide the link to wikipedia. Ordinary users will ever look at OSM data
close enough to find out this details.

Richard

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

Re: start_date variants

Eugene Alvin Villar
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:28 AM Richard <[hidden email]> wrote:
It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction - often construction starts many years before the building is finshed: Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain are famous examples. How to tag this? Maybe: construction:start_date?

Any thoughts on this?

you could map what was there at any particular time but I think it is better to provide the link to Wikipedia. Ordinary users will ever look at OSM data close enough to find out this details.

+1 (but link to Wikidata instead of [or in addition to] Wikipedia)

Most OSM data users only care about what is located where. Very few OSM data users would be interested in historical information such as when a building, a basilica, or an airport began and finished its construction. The actual people who would be interested in such information would look elsewhere instead of OSM and I think Wikidata is an excellent place to document such rich types of information. For example, see the Wikidata item for the Sagrada Família: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48435


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

Re: start_date variants

Topographe Fou
Agree on the purpose of Wikidata but many OSM features (such as buildings) does not have a Wikidata item (only major buildings have one, usually landmarks).

I would rather say that as soon as an OSM item has a Wikidata attribute then a QA tool may suggest to move some other attributes in Wikidata where they would be better updated and served (start_date for instance). Otherwise those attributes would be fine if no Wikidata item is associated. The OSM wiki pages of such attributes (e.g. start_date) would suggest to put them in Wikidata if and only if an item already exists there.

Yours,

LeTopographeFou
Envoyé: 18 février 2019 9:43 PM
Répondre à: [hidden email]
Objet: Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:28 AM Richard <[hidden email]> wrote:
It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction - often construction starts many years before the building is finshed: Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain are famous examples. How to tag this? Maybe: construction:start_date?

Any thoughts on this?

you could map what was there at any particular time but I think it is better to provide the link to Wikipedia. Ordinary users will ever look at OSM data close enough to find out this details.

+1 (but link to Wikidata instead of [or in addition to] Wikipedia)

Most OSM data users only care about what is located where. Very few OSM data users would be interested in historical information such as when a building, a basilica, or an airport began and finished its construction. The actual people who would be interested in such information would look elsewhere instead of OSM and I think Wikidata is an excellent place to document such rich types of information. For example, see the Wikidata item for the Sagrada Família: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48435


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

Re: start_date variants

dieterdreist


Am Do., 21. Feb. 2019 um 09:17 Uhr schrieb Topographe Fou <[hidden email]>:
Agree on the purpose of Wikidata but many OSM features (such as buildings) does not have a Wikidata item (only major buildings have one, usually landmarks).



you can always create one ;-)

 
I would rather say that as soon as an OSM item has a Wikidata attribute then a QA tool may suggest to move some other attributes in Wikidata


-1, I would be categorically opposing such a suggestion. Removing information from OpenStreetMap because it is present in external data (which is referenced by OSM) is not ok. We are not wikimedia or wikidata. We do not control what they decide. These objects could be removed anytime, or could be modified anytime in a way that is inconsistent with OSM data. There are also questions about the copyright situation of content in wikidata. We should not impose the need to use wikidata in order to make sense of OSM.

I am not opposing referencing wikidata in general of course, rather I am doing it a lot myself, even creating wikidata items from time to time, but this does not mean we should _move_ information from OSM to wikidata. E.g. not remove the "architect" tag just because someone put an architect:wikidata=Q123 tag.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: start_date variants

Yuri Astrakhan-2
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:51 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am not opposing referencing wikidata in general of course, rather I am doing it a lot myself, even creating wikidata items from time to time, but this does not mean we should _move_ information from OSM to wikidata. E.g. not remove the "architect" tag just because someone put an architect:wikidata=Q123 tag.

Does this essentially mean that data consumers should treat architect:wikidata as an overriding tag?  E.g. if "architect" key is present -- use it, unless "architect:wikidata" exist, in which case "architect" can be safely ignored.  The only exception is data quality tools that will check that the architect:wikidata tag matches the architect tag (obviously this will benefit human readers as well with the same purpose of data validation).  TBH I am not too sure how much value is in this, or if this will create more problems than solve, but I am not categorically opposed to it either.

I would like to somehow get rid of the "us vs them" (osm vs wikidata) -- people could come to both projects and modify/remove information. Most people won't know/care about licensing or political differences - they treat both as "wikis" they can contribute to. After all, people are very happy to contribute even to Google maps despite the data not being public.  So if we are to build better open data, we should encourage as much collaboration between projects as possible, rather than try to create extra walls or restrictions. This doesn't mean you are doing it (you said yourself you add stuff to Wikidata), just wanted to explain my philosophical approach to data openness :)

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

Re: start_date variants

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 21. Feb 2019, at 21:46, Yuri Astrakhan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Most people won't know/care about licensing or political differences - they treat both as "wikis" they can contribute to. After all, people are very happy to contribute even to Google maps despite the data not being public.  So if we are to build better open data, we should encourage as much collaboration between projects as possible, rather than try to create extra walls or restrictions.


I see some very fundamental differences, on different layers. Wikidata has different criteria what may be added (relevance) and based on what information. If you want to add the non-famous architect of some building to wikidata, you must fear that someone will delete it tomorrow because it is not relevant, only famous architects must be added. In OSM you can tag any architect on a building, as long as she has planned it.


The impression I got from wikidata is that it is mostly bots touching the objects, while in OSM we aim at having human mappers performing the individual edits. As everything is defined through other things and properties in wikidata, the resulting complexity cannot be overseen by anybody, so that any edit on object x might break objects y and z. 
An example?
Take “city”, 1.5 years ago it was a subclass of 3 classes:

while now it is a subclass of 5 classes of which only 1 is the same than a few time ago.

This means all the cities that are instances of the city class, have “changed” as well with this edit (their wikidata definition has), significantly. 
It would be as if we changed continuously the meaning of tags (we do it, but not in such a drastic way).

It happens with many objects in WD, either they are poorly defined (scarce semantic information and no references for the claims) or they have a whole bunch of properties which permanently change.

Cheers, Martin 



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

Re: start_date variants

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Yuri Astrakhan-2
Hi,

On 21.02.19 21:46, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Does this essentially mean that data consumers should treat
> architect:wikidata as an overriding tag?

I wouldn't want to tell data consumers that they should. Depending on
who contributed it, "architect" might have better or worse information
than "architect:wikidata".

> I would like to somehow get rid of the "us vs them" (osm vs wikidata)

Both projects have different cultures and we can work and thrive
together if we understand and respect that, in a "good fences make good
neighbours" kind of way.

For OSM, my main concern is that it must remain usable independent of
wikidata, and that the OSM community must not be lured into spending
their time to further wikidata integration if they don't have that
personal interest.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: start_date variants

Tordanik
In reply to this post by Stephan Bösch-Plepelits-2
On 15.02.19 11:03, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
> much older, it was built in 1725: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535

The root of the issue is that two different features (a building, and a
museum inside that building) are mapped as a single OSM element. That's
ok as a shortcut in simple cases, but when the two features have
different names, different Wikipedia links, and different start dates,
they should really be split into two elements: One for the building, one
for the museum.

Generally, I believe that following a "One feature <=> one OSM element"
principle will lead to cleaner data.

Tobias

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