[Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Wed Nov 7 07:36:08 UTC 2018


PS:

Gerd and I are not at war here. We just don't agree on the correct way to
proceed. In fact, I have had lots of help from him when developing maps for
my Garmin and will need his help in the future, no doubt. Maybe to convince
him to write the code in mkgmap to better "see inside" relations to dig out
the details. I know for a fact that without a man_made=pipeline tag on
those ways, my current style sheet won't find them and will be unable to
render them. Unless I get help from Gerd. LOL

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 2:27 PM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's true. Gerd and I have gone round and .around on this topic. Gerd has
> tried to convince me that I should not remove any tags of the ways
> contained in the existing Alaska pipeline relation and I'm convinced that
> the only tags that belong on those ways are the ones that make that
> particular way different from any other ways. Hence, tags like location,
> and bridge, properly belong on the ways. Obviously, you can't include
> bridge=yes and layer=1 in any top level relation. Those sorts of attributes
> belong on the way and only on the way. I have tried to convince him that
> any attribute or characteristic that applies to the pipeline in its
> entirety, belongs on the relation and not on the pipeline way itself. It
> doesn't hurt to have them there but it's unnecessary and I also argue,
> having those duplicated tags makes maintaining the relation rather messy.
>
> I provided two examples from the Wiki and a part of a response earlier in
> this thread from Kevin Kenny to support my argument that state that
> individual ways in a multipolygon or relation should not be tagged unless
> their characteristics require it.  If you're working with a route=road and
> the surface changes, you split the way and mark it so. Same with maxspeed
> or number of lanes. The characteristics are those of the way, not the
> entire route, and rightly belong only on the way.  In the case of the
> pipeline, tags like man_made=pipeline, substance=oil, operator, Wikipedia
> and Wikidata tags, belong in the relation. The people who first added the
> pipeline to OSM did it both ways, probably to guarantee that it would be
> visible to OSM or other data consumers, but I don't know.
>
> I believe the people that cautioned us in the Wiki, people that I assume
> know more about it than either Gerd or me, to add tags to a way contained
> in a relation only when its characteristics or attributes are different
> from the overall route characteristics. I take their meaning literally.
> Gerd disagrees but gives no proof for his assertion.
>
> So there you have it. We're stuck.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:27 PM Gerd Petermann <
> gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> after reading the last comments in this thread I tried again to convince
>> Dave that the rather special rules for multipolygon relations cannot be
>> used
>> for all types of relations, esp. not those with route=pipeline and that he
>> should not remove tags like man_made=pipeline from ways of such a
>> relation,
>> see this long discussion:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64027881
>>
>> I give up now because for me a type=multipolygon relation is something
>> completely different and Dave insists that it is are not. Seems we are
>> both
>> frustated now :-(
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181107/7c6a290b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list