@publicerination: I had a look at how tennis courts are mapped in Great Britain and more than half are not single courts. Lejun has just posted a follow-up showin how to do the same kind of analysis directly in R.

Bravo!

Both https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=sports_centre and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=recreation_ground tags have meant many things to many people over the years. Originally I presume the first was meant for the kind of place with both outside pitches and indoor facilities and often multi-sport (often called leisure centres when publicly owned in the UK), whereas the second gradually subsumed a tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=playing_field, but was at the outset meant for areas with lots of pitches, whether for several sports or the facilities of a single club.

Recreation ground has come to mean something akin to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=leisure, whereas https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=sports_centre has broadened it’s meaning to mean any place dedicated to one-or-more sports. In general a broadening of tag semantics usually means that another tag needs to be created to restore the ability to identify things which had the original meaning.

Back to the post. Mapping multiple pitches as one is an entirely reasonable thing to do, particularly if they are mapped as a side activity to the original intent. It is however always useful to add some information about the actual number of items: quantity obviously does this, but may to too general, courts is probably too specific as it can’t be applied to any old pitch. Long ago I suggested pitch:count which provides a fairly generic way (i.e., key=tag, tag:count=#) to provide a count when multiple objects are mapped as one (tennis courts are undoubtedly the major example, but bollards are too).

You can also look for tennis courts which are unfeasibly large with overpass-Turbo, in which case you may find areas with no indication that multiple pitches are involved.

I use iD a bit on a tablet (and much more rarely on a phone), but there are issues in that long/short press can be quite laggy which makes accessing the right mouse-button awkward. This may be determined by how much data has been downloaded.

In terms of UX Vespucci is a full featured editor and works rather better both on mobile phone and tablet formats.

I think the big advantage of the Community site is that there is more awareness of things happening in other communities and consequently better knowledge that many mapping issues are more general. Some of this is purely down to some of the poor UI/UX aspects you describe!

Will do, there are only two. Took far longer to find them than to map ‘em. I’m sure if you do a trip to Wales there are lots more around Carmarthen.

The Welsh example of a lorry collecting churns probably comes from this site, and belongs to the RCAHMW under a NC licence.

and another

hmm:

Syntactic conventions for new tags

“The strings chosen for the key part have some conventional forms:

Ideally, a key is one word, in lowercase, using British English if possible. When that can’t be the case, a key should be one concept, whose words are underscore_separated. This avoids some whitespace issues, and has generally come about because OSM people also tend to be programmers and like the syntax.”

from the wiki, my emphasis ;-)

A bit frustrated that I couldn’t find one, but have eventually located one:

A couple of comments:

• Shouldn’t the tag be milk_churn_stand. In general hyphens are not favoured.
• You should probably provide attribution for the image from the National Collection, and the Geograph ones. See how I’ve done it here.

Not horses, but similar queries were raised about sheepfolds (with contributions from Greece, Iran and UK). I’ve also noted stone (?) enclosures for cattle in high-altitude areas of Lesotho. There’s a nice article here on the various uses of sheepfolds.

Wikipedia mungs together a whole range of different things under Pen (enclosure) which is not particularly helpful. I therefore agree that “pen” is probably too wide-ranging, and I think the other key thing is that we are looking to tag structures well away from farmyards. I don’t think corral as a tag would be too bad.

It’s a shame that old USGS maps really capture little other than the homestead of old ranches. There must have been more obvious infrastructure.

It might be a UK thing. Most regular estate agents are in shops on high streets, with some kind of customer service agent. You can just wander in and have a chat. Years ago there was one which sold houses and war gaming miniatures! But historically they’ve often offered other retail services, such as minor banking.

There are also high-end residential and commercial estate agents in non-retail areas with office premises where you usually need an appointment.

Seems to be protect_class=14 (there’s a fishing prohibited one for Germany)

Field names are actually an invaluable resource for linguistic scholars of language. Because of their very nature of being passed down the generations they often preserve older pronunciations and dialect words.

My cousin, formerly a lecturer in Irish at the University of Ulster, is an expert in this area, and is currently working on a linguistic atlas of Brittany. He always places great value on the actual pronunciation, so it is worth making audio recordings relating to this data as well.

I think another germanophone, b-unicycling, has also mapped field names around Killarney.

I’m not sure that the Heritage England licence terms are actually OGL, specifically clauses 2 & 3 appear to remove rights standardly granted under OGL:

You must always use the following attribution statements to acknowledge the >source of the information:

© Historic England [year]. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right [year].

The Historic England GIS Data contained in this material was obtained on [date]. The most publicly available up to date Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from HistoricEngland.org.uk. The same requirement for an attribution statement must be contained in any sub-licences of the Historic England GIS Data that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same.

I asked Owen Boswarva about this privately a month ago and he pointed me to a tweet of his from October, also raising doubts about whether the licence is truly open.

I’m actually looking at a ski area which has freeride runs which climb above a lift station in order to gain access to the next valley, for instance this one. In some of these cases the tagging is a bit deficient in not splitting the uphill & downhill parts of the route, but they do neatly exemplify the issue.

@InsertUser: Not at the moment, but once I have everything in PostGIS I would use st_segment to add vertices to paths at a given interval (10-20 m perhaps), one could also use contours to add points where a path intersects the contours. In principle one could do this with vectorised versions of the slope & aspect, but I think that is both overkill & prone to polygon assembly artefacts.

I suspect this is part and parcel of Stamen withdrawing support for various tile layers. It was rather hidden away in a post by Alan McConchie on the #30daymapchallenge, but I think we reported it on weeklyOSM, but didn’t spot that it might affect Field Papers.

@Kai Johnson: really nice to hear that this has resonance elsewhere. Looks like California has reasonable Lidar coverage, but not sure about other DEM resources in the US.

I’ve now done the more detailed analysis, but I need to do some work on the visualisation and rebuild the DEM (not all areas had 1 m Lidar, so I need to add in some 2 m Lidar to fill the gaps). Once I’ve done that I’ll write up the work-flow.

At present no real surprises in the immediate area I’m looking at (NY20), other than a path which certainly didn’t exist 20-odd years ago, but can be followed on imagery.

@InsertUser: completely in agreement, scramble might not have been perfect but it would have avoided this type of incident.