Humm… Co-relation of alcohol consumption and perception of corruption? :)

Read it on the web osm.org/diary

Map the fence .. that should stop others from adding the path.

Oh .. I don’t follow “presets” nor the OSMwiki .. I read the OSMwiki and think on it ..

Why not follow the above? Because it is is someones idea or a group of peoples ideas on how to map the things they are mapping.. the thing I am mapping may not suit those ideas.

The ‘building’ I usually map from the roof outline - it is the easiest thing to do. However, with the pedantic hat on, the ‘building’ is the foot print it has at ground level. The roof could be mapped as a building part = roof, layer =1 … possibly. For the Sydney Opera House I have the roofs that overlap each other at different layers .. not happy with it but I have some more thinking to do on it .. the near vertical glass sections I think are part of the ‘roof’ … not mapped yet.

Problem: The Sydney Opera House basements extend south for quite some distance out from under the buildings foot print…

Oh dear…the duck faces have not been blurred. They will complain. Naughty!

Hi, First, your entries into OSM become OSM ‘property’ .. so they may be of interest to you, but they are not really ‘yours’ any longer. I view it as giving. Second, I make changes without notifying past contributors. Usually these are up dates, or adding detail. Only when I am not certain, I disagree with the entry or there is a pattern that does not match present tagging that I will try to contact a past mapper. Third, contacting a past mapper is a curtsy not a requirement. Last, best to get some other locals involved as they may have other ideas too. Hopefully a good conclusion can be reached.

Hi,

You also get international help from time to time too. So good maps help all those not familiar with the area. Those coming from far away can get a preview by looking at OSM for the relevant maps to get an idea of the roads at least.

I now have a rear camera on my push bike … I may get one for the front too.

The police tend to do what they want .. not what we victims want … some times they will use video footage, other times they won’t.

Keep your head down and your chin up. I prefer mapping the country side, less people = less potential problems.

Hi Welcome ot OSM!

What you want to do, in OSM terms, is add a ‘feature’ (a thing) at a location.

You need to find out what OSM uses (tags) that feature e.g. a school is tagged as “amenity=school” and one way of finding these ‘features’ is to use the OSMwiki amenity=school

On the top right corner of that page there is a search box .. type in there want you want to add and hopefully it will find it for you.

The editors, such as iD, have many things in them .. but not all. The OSMwiki also has many things .. a few more than the editors, and it is also more verbose than the editors. I prefer to use the OSMwiki as that gives me more information.

Hi,

I too though roundabout had to be segmented for routes… turns out they don’t! So keep roundabout hole, not segmented.

Routes .. in version 2 formate .. take a look at my poor explanation @Warin61/diary/45106

An external attachment to a vehicle can make it illegal. One view is that it increases the risk of injury to a person who is hit by the vehicle. If you want to avoid the argument/fine then place the camera inside the vehicle .. preferably so it is unlikely to injure people inside the vehicle :)

I don’t think a laboratory is an amenity for the general community.

Are these businesses, or governmental?

Someone asked a similar question https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62806/how-to-tag-a-research-laboratory

A better place to ask these tagging questions in on the tagging list … https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I’ll ask for you .. but you should follow along.

==================== Does OSM have permission to use soilhealth.dac.gov.in data?

Use the OSMwiki?

generator:source=solar

A previous question and answer https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/43120/solar-farm-tagging

Hi,

The wiki page osm.wiki/Forest covers the controversy of tagging ‘trees’ in OSM

Some take the view that ‘natural=wood’ is only for non human effected trees from the word ‘natural’. Some take the view that the area is of some size due to the word ‘wood’. So they use the tag ‘landuse=forest’ for all other occurrences.

Some take the view that ‘landuse=forest’ is for any tree are that is in some way ‘managed’. It may have had a dead tree removed 50 years ago and thus they classify it as ‘managed’.

My view? # natural The key ‘natural’ is taken for both ‘natural’ things and things ‘ that are effected by humans’ (thus unnatural) So this key conveys no meaning in the word used. It would be better to replace it with what it does mean, there are two meanings, land cover and land form.

landuse

The wiki is quite clear .. this is the use of the land for humans. The tag ‘landuse=forest’ is polluted and cannot be relied on for its original intention.

managed

What do that mean? There is no OSM definition, mappers use that word to mean different things. Result = confusion. Don’t use the word … say what you mean.

Where to from here?

There are many possible solutions and ideas.

One is to abandon landuse=forest. Replace it all with ‘natural=wood’.

Then those who know that the land is used to produce produce from the trees might use landuse=forestry, with produce=timber/oil/*. Those who use landuse=forestry with out a produce key may find the entry changed to natural=wood! A suggestion is that natural=wood be retained for rendering with landuse=forestry has been suggested.

Another idea is to replace the key ‘natural’.

As for the presence of trees in an area where the produce is timber? From time to time some areas will have no trees (harvested), baby trees, fully grown trees, partial tree reduction, etc. OSM does not track the state of a farmers field, so I don’t track the state of a forestry area. You can if you want .. but I don’t see much point as there is enough to do without tracking the tree status.

Don’t know if you’ll find what your looking for … but a source of OSM hiking trails is the link I gave above..

Arr .. the BNT uses lots of roads

way/256691095 Section of road used by the BNT

way/186852687#map=16/-35.8675/148.6326 section of track leading west from the above section of road

way/256691094#map=14/-35.8669/148.6400 the section of track leading south from the first section (road).

The BNT is big - and long ~5,000km.

Repair and fix.

This then keeps the history of it so people can see where it came from.

I’d make the ‘side trail’ an ‘alternative route’ - separate relation and then include that relation in the primary one .. works better in https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=3444486&map=11!42.7573!-81.2282 for things like downloading the GPX/KML flies.

See https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=1388126&map=9!-33.3964!151.4204 ‘sections’ for how they come out.

@Andy… Yes a tunnel :)… If people want to nit pick; Over time it will ‘silt up’ and have silt cover it - thus earth … The ‘earth’ includes oceans, rivers etc .. so water is ‘earth’ …

How is that for a ‘definition’ of ‘earth’?

———————– @althio - even more selective. The simple OSM definition for a tunnel - without all the explanatory words is ‘‘A tunnel is an underground passage for a road or similar’’. The key word there is ‘underground’, to me that means earth above it, beside it and below it. And I would accept water as being part of the earth.

@althio

“surrounded by earth”… meaning earth on top, as well as the sides and the bottom.

There is no earth on top - on top is the bridge .. so these are not tunnels by that definition.

As for ‘the lower way is long” I would take that ti mean dimensionally greater than the dimension of that section of bridge across the top of it. But for me the more important defining thing is the earth aspect, no earth between the bridge and the thing under it - it is not a tunnel. A tunnel is bored though earth, it does not have a man made thing above it all the way to the surface.

Software documentation is written in a language all of its own.