[Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Johnparis okosm at johnfreed.com
Sat Jun 8 15:07:29 UTC 2019


I agree with Marc that you should never "create nodes at a random position
with the equipment to avoid the tag for the characteristic". If you place a
node, it should reflect as closely as possible the actual position,
although if the position is uncertain, it's typical in OSM to place a node
rather than an area (closed way). If it's just a sheer guess, however, the
node should be avoided. And if there are "a lot of these things here", then
that argues even more strongly for making it a characteristic of the
enclosing area, rather than a node. Think of hotel rooms -- rather than
mapping each room (as an area or, shudder, a node), you simply tag the
hotel with "rooms=35".

As to the example of a bus shelter with a bench, I personally favor making
it a characteristic of the shelter (as Marc suggests), rather than placing
a separate node, because the bench would not exist except for the shelter.
If there is a bench NEAR the shelter, but outside of it, I would make that
a separate node. But that is my personal preference, I occasionally
encounter shelters mapped as areas with nodes for benches inside. It's not
my style, but on the other hand I don't change it if someone else has done
it. I do add the "bench=yes" tag, however, to the shelter itself, as that's
useful for people searching for shelters-with-benches.

In general, I try to think of a typical end-user case. What will make OSM
most helpful for the person who wants to use it? (not: what will make
things easiest for the mapper?)

John




On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 4:46 PM François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you two for the elaborated answers
>
> I agree that currently many mapping practices split sites and devices.
> Then the idea should spread as to not get in arguments like the one in the
> proposal.
>
> Nevertheless I have comments regarding Marc examples :
> * " bin/shelter/bench=yes on a bus stop for this equipment is present
> in the area of the bus stop"
> Shouldn't we put a node inside the bus-stop shelter area to materialize
> the bin or the bench?
> * lit=yes on an highway feature properly indicates kind of "process"
> without be redundant with individual street lights lighting the road
> This is exactly with I propose for traction substations, mapping process
> on sites and devices independently.
>
> Things are better than I thought.
> Then, it would be good to amend the 1 feature=1 osm object page with more
> clear messages (and examples)
> All of this discussion only cover sites mapped as areas. We can start by
> stating that a particular device on the ground should get its own object
> instead of being moved to enclosing building/site/place ?
> This is not possible to distinguish sites from devices at the moment they
> are located on a single node.
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 01:06, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 07.06.19 à 19:08, François Lacombe a écrit :
>> > a need to distinguish sites and devices in our tagging.
>>
>> making a difference between a characteristic of a site and the device
>> providing that characteristic is already what we do for many objects.
>> below are some examples.
>> I find it quite logical and useful to inform therefore that a site
>> has a feature with another tag than the device of this feature.
>> in that sense I find your proposal quite coherent.
>> I completely disagree with the idea of a comment on the proposal
>> to create nodes at a random position with the equipment to avoid
>> the tag for the characteristic. of course,
>> it's better to be able to map each device separately, but not
>> by inventing their position and number just to need one less tag
>>
>> some exemples :
>> bin/shelter/bench=yes on a bus stop for this equipment is present
>> in the area of the bus stop
>> bar=yes on a POI to say that there is a bar in the area of the POI
>> lit=yes on a road to say that there are lighting devices nearby.
>> tactile_paving on the node of a pedestrian crossing to indicate
>> that there is a tactile_paving at the intersection of the pedestrian
>> path and the kerb
>> toilets and toilets:wheelchair on a POI
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190608/004b869a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list