[Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags

Roy Jamison xteejyx at googlemail.com
Thu Apr 25 23:32:32 UTC 2013


Funny, I thought a typo was a "mispelling", not a change in use or change
of tag.
natural=gras fair enough, but actually changing any subtle definitions of
what a mapper actually meant by the difference between tags cannot be done
by "an armchair mapper" as someone put it.

What really pees me off (OK I've not been around for a while but the fact
remains), and many others here is that it was not previously discussed
before this started.

It's like changing a country leader without checking with the public is
it's ok to do so.

Doesn't happen in a democratic society, which OSM embodies.


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Dudley Ibbett <dudleyibbett at hotmail.com>wrote:

> I suspect mapping meadows is a job for "experts".  I tried asking one and
> was told there are no "natural" meadows in the UK and meadow is a
> "landuse".  Probably time to find another expert.  To this extent, for most
> mappers natural=meadow and landuse=meadow would certainly be
> interchangable.  If however people could avoid using meadow just because
> there is a horse in the field this would be good.
>
> If a mass edit removes information (i.e. the type of meadow) then I
> wouldn't be happy if this was done to my work.  Discussing such edits with
> the local community would seem the best approach.
>
> More detailed mapping of the rural landscape does seem to be increasing so
> perhaps a GB guidance page on rural mapping with GB examples would be a
> good idea if a consensus can be found.
>
> Regards
>
> Dudley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:57:10 +0100
> From: bprangle at gmail.com
> To: tom at acrewoods.net
> CC: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
>
> Just to take take the conversation into another orbit simultaneously, I'd
> like to clarify Tom's remarks about natural=wood and landuse=forest being
>  interchangeable in the UK. I always tag landuse=forest where aerial
> imagery shows a regular pattern of tree spacing which is a good indicator
> of planting following the wiki guideline for forest as being "Managed
> forest or woodland plantation" to differentiate from naturally spaced
> trees. Without surveying it's difficult to ascertain the "managed" bit
> though
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 25 April 2013 14:19, Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
>
> I can sympathise with some of what Jerry, John and Frederik have said here.
>
> There is undoubtedly a lot of slightly inappropriate tagging in the
> database, meaning that serious use of the data often requires a lot of
> cleaning up. I went around Southwark changing lots of land uses but based
> on surveys and where it was clearly wrong, so that I could do some analysis
> and make nice maps of green spaces in the borough. It used to be the case
> that landuse=recreation_ground was _the_ way that we all tagged any green
> space that wasn't a park. I routinely change these to landuse=grass when I
> come across them these days, unless they really are recreation grounds. I
> wouldn't want to be held back by having to divine (or enquire about) the
> intention of the original editor each time!
>
> It's also annoying when the tag Jerry is looking for, according to the
> wiki, is "natural=grassland" not "natural=grass" as you would expect:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass
>
> Also the tag "natural=meadow" has been merged into "landuse="meadow".
> There is now another key "meadow=agricultural/perpetual" (oh joy) to
> distinguish between managed and unmanaged meadow, or what used to be the
> natural/landuse split!
>
> There is, in general, a longstanding confusion about natural/landuse. The
> natural=wood/landuse=forest use is pretty interchangeable across the UK, so
> that we can only really treat them as equivalent and meaning "some trees".
>
> The problem that John, Jerry and I have all run into is the downside of a
> free tagging system without a mechanism to iron these wrinkles out. We can
> only really shrug our shoulders and accept that the data is really patchy
> in terms of coverage and appropriate tagging, and do our best to improve it
> after discussion. Incidentally, if you want to see a real basket case of a
> key, look at the values in Taginfo for the building key!
>
> As Frederik said, it is best to discuss ideas for large scale corrections
> on a mailing list first. That way these issues come out and can be
> discussed before the edits, clean-up strategies can be improved, and people
> don't get upset at mistaken edits no matter how good the intentions.
>
> John, I would suggest that you inspect each natural=grass object on a case
> by case basis to try and determine which of these it best fits:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
>
> On 25 April 2013 13:59, sk53.osm <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you assume that landuse=grass is more correct than natural=grass.
> This is precisely the problem I have with your edits. If I use natural=*
> for something someone comes and changes it to landuse=* which is not what I
> meant.
>
> I ONLY use landuse=grass for amenity grassland (mainly in cities) which
> would otherwise not be mapped. I would never use landuse=grass for
> grassland in a farm or a nature reserve, or on a sports pitch (we have a
> perfectly good surface=* for that). Unfortunately many people have used
> landuse=grass indiscriminately (for instance for farmland in Holland
> http://osm.org/go/0E6w0ZK-- and here in Lancashire<http://osm.org/go/evhgKyE>(the area around Garstang shows wholly inappropriate use of landuse=meadow
> too). It seems that people prefer the green colour rendering for these over
> the brown for farmland. I am unaware that landuse=farmland only refers to
> arable.
>
> I don't know if you have heard of places like the Steppes & the Pampas,
> the American Plains,
> or the Serengeti, but there do exist large areas of the world covered by
> grasses which are natural!
>
> You are not the only remote mapper to do this kind of change, xybot zapped
> one of my natural=grass tags.
>
> Obviously I will now have to make my intentions absolutely explict with
> notes etc., which rather defeats the point of tags. Perhaps I should use
> SK53:natural=wood and then they won't get trampled on.
>
> The problem is that you are anxious for everything to be rendered in a
> uniform manner, but you are not considering the many other use cases
> particularly for landuse/landcover data. Continuous tidying up of tagging
> in this area means that OSM is not currently a viable platform for serious
> use for conservation
>
> Jerry
> .
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, John Baker <rovastar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to be clear about what I am doing.
>
> I have been changing many what I consider typos. The majority have been
> simple changes I started by cleaning up the lanes tag as I was doing work
> getting lanes tagged correctly for the new CartoCSS and lanes=90 (where
> they was not) and lanes=two made no sense. So I fixed each of these
> worldwide looking at aerial imagery, (e.g. needed so leave a lanes=27 or
> something for a massive border entrance)
>
> Again inspired by my designing new style at doing CartoCSS styling I
> looked at other features that I has been doing, fountains, nightclubs,
> religions, ice rinks, etc
>
> Then fixing some the nature, landuse tags, landuse=maedow to meadow, etc
> within the same tagtype.
>
> Recently I wanted to tackle one of my biggest personal bugbears of
> natural=grass which is (now was) tagged incorrectly and should be
> landuse=grass. There where dozens/hundreds in my local area so I did the
> whole UK.
>
> In case where I moved tag type (natural to landuse) I looked at if they
> added anything to the corresponding tag.
>
> So if nature=grass already had landuse=park or something I didn't change
> it over.
>
> Also I looked at the ways that had a name or had notes and decided if they
> where due more investigation and if to edit them or not. To be honest most
> didn't and it was quick and easy to check in JOSM when I highlight them all.
>
> I tried to explain myself in the change set notes.
>
> I like to think I have been responsible when doing this and think it
> improves the database/map.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rovastar/edits?page=1
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:20:32 +0200
> > From: frederik at remote.org
> > To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 04/24/2013 04:26 PM, John Baker wrote:
> > > AFAIC these were typo edits and getting the whole database more
> > > consistent. I have done dozens of changes to fix typos worldwide over
> > > the past few weeks and it would be crazy to have lengthy discussions on
> > > each one for multiple countries in multiple communication channels.
> >
> > If you don't have the time or the will to do it properly, then simply
> > leave it be.
> >
> > The rule is that as soon as you make an edit where you don't look at the
> > individual object you edit, it is a mechanical edit that has to be
> > discussed beforehand.
> >
> > The reason for this rule is that it is too easy to introduce mistakes -
> > what looks like a "typo" to one person could make sense to another.
> >
> > Assume that there's an object tagged landuse=forest *and* natural=meadow
> > *and* it carries a note tag that explains exactly what the mapper meant
> > by this. Someone simply looking for all natural=meadow and replacing
> > them with landuse=meadow would overwrite the landuse=forest and not even
> > see the note tag - he performs a mechanical edit that needs to be
> > discussed beforehand (in order to minimize undesirable side effects).
> >
> > On the other hand, if someone were to manually go through all objects
> > tagged natural=meadow, read potential note tags, look at the other tags
> > and/or aerial imagery, and *then* change them to landuse=meadow, that
> > would not be a mechanical edit.
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130426/672ab976/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list