[talk-au] Fwd: vine row tagging

[John Bryant]

Thanks Ian, that's a very good point re: consistency with orchards &
plantations. Whether this style of mapping will actually prove to be
broadly useful, time will tell I suppose, but seems better to start off
aiming for consistency.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 06:41, Little Maps <mapslittle at gmail.com> wrote:

> That’s an interesting development in OSM micro-mapping John. Can I put a
> vote in for using natural=tree_row rather than barrier=fence, if no better
> options are available. I’m not arguing from the point of rendering, but
> from the perspective of developing a tagging scheme that will be useful in
> other orchards and even perhaps timber plantations, if future mappers
> extend this process. Most (all?) orchards and plantations have woody plants
> in rows, but only a few have fence-like trellises. Natural=tree_row would
> be suitable for a wide range of orchards and plantations whereas
> barrier=fence is much more restricted. It would be a pain if the almond
> plantations and citrus orchards in a region used one tagging scheme while
> the nearby vineyards used a different one. I’m certainly glad I don’t have
> to map them all! Best wishes Ian
>
> On 16 Oct 2020, at 8:37 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
> Resending message to the list :-(
>
> How do we fix it so that "Reply" goes to the list, not just the last
> poster?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:20
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] vine row tagging
> To: John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 16:34, John Bryant <johnwbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, they want to map rows, to use OSM in a way that will be useful to
>> the viticulture community. The idea is to add more detail to vineyards than
>> is currently in OSM, which has vineyard areas but not rows.
>>
>> To some degree, but for viticulture people it would be useful to use
>> *actual* rather than assumed locations.
>>
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Referring to the OSM carto rendering? That's a good point. What else could
>> we use to describe a vine row?
>>
>
> As Brendan mentioned, mark them in as fences, which will show a nice
> straight line, although that could be called tagging for the renderer! :-)
> It wouldn't be altogether wrong though, as they do form a barrier to
> movement across the rows!
>
> do features like vine rows belong in OSM? Does the difficulty in finding a
>> tagging schema for vine rows point to an incompatible feature type? I had
>> assumed that because they're readily observable on the ground, and
>> relatively persistent, it would make sense to map them... but if there's a
>> reason they shouldn't be in OSM it would be good to know, so the folks I'm
>> helping can change course.
>>
>
> I guess that's a question of what do the end-users want to see about
> "their" land? Most would probably be happy just to see it as a vineyard,
> but if somebody wants extra detail, is it up to us to say "No"? I wouldn't
> have said so, myself!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20201016/16e4497c/attachment.htm>