| Changeset |
No. |
Date |
Contributor |
Comment |
|
| 47002420 | malcolmh | Steve,US lateral seamarks conform to the IALA-B system: port-hand marks are green and starboard-hand marks are red. (See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Buoyage_Systems).This beacon is a starboard-hand mark, not port. I note that you have made the same mistake on other lateral m... |
|
| 45652310 | chippy | You just deleted Node 1 |
| chippy | again |
| chippy | Sorry, I mean, it had been deleted and restored previously :) |
| malcolmh | You had created a duplicate of node 3815077900, which has been there since 2015. |
| SomeoneElse | @chippy I don't think malcolmh created the duplicate - that was someone else trying to move an "important" node "somewhere important". "node 1" has been on a few continents so far - I'm sure it'll get resurrected somewhere else at some point. As for the NOAA buoy here... |
| chippy | The history of node 1 indicates that it is frequently deleted and restored.SomeoneElse: I did not say that malcolmh created the duplicate node. But malcolmh did delete Node 1 (as the only change) in this changeset which is the subject of this changeset discussion. I also don't think malcolmh... |
| malcolmh | I was replying to chippy! @chippy when you "restored" node 1, node 3815077900 was already in the database & had been since 2015. Therefore you had created a duplicate & that is why I deleted it. |
| SomeoneElse | I'm just confused because it wasn't chippy that restored node 1! |
| malcolmh | Sequence of events:24/5/15: node 1 restored as a tree in DE3/11/15: node 3815077900 created at 0,01/12/16: node 1 deleted30/1/17: node 1 restored, this time at 0,0 - on top of node 3815077900. Later that day, I deleted it.The mapper that has created this confusion is "glglgl", ... |
| malcolmh | Also, apologies to chippy, who I now realise was not the mapper who created the duplicate, only the mapper who raised the issue. |
| EzekielT | Node 1 used to be a tree in Passau.. |
|
| 44681043 | pnorman | This doesn't align with the bridge, is that correct? |
| malcolmh | You are right, the position is clearly incorrect. My contribution was only to correct the tagging, not the positioning. (See my comment on the previous changeset for this node). The original mapper imported this and many more objects using the source "http://www.notmar.gc.ca/go.php?doc=eng/serv... |
| pnorman | I've asked the original user what's going on at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40049186, because this looks like an undiscussed import with potential license issues |
|
| 41709545 | Hjart | Is it really necessary to duplicate tags like this? |
| archie | Yes, it is. It's not duplicate tags anywhay because it's in an own namespace (seamarkings). Purpose: Name of harbor to be rendered on map.openseamap.org. |
| Hjart | Why can't you simply use the name tag? |
| archie | On www.openseamap.org only tags in namespace "seamarkings" are rendered concerning at least harbours. Why do you bother? It dos not interfere w anything. The information is orderly in its own namespace. Nothing to worry about. Just leave the seamark:-tags where they are if you are not invo... |
| Hjart | I worry because it's taking up unnecessary space in our database as well as complicating things equally unnecessarily.Honestly I'm feeling very tempted to remove the crap |
| Hjart | The claim that you are not duplicating tags is complete nonsense. You have given the seamark:name=* tag the exact same value as the existing name=* tag. This to me is practically duplicating tags. |
| Hjart | I brought this up on IRC and I'm seeing prominent members of the community agree that the Openseamap namespacing everything needs to stop. |
| archie | I sent a message to Malcom Herring, who is a major representative of openseamap. I hope he will enter this discussion. |
| malcolmh | "name" and "seamark:name" do not necessarily have the same value. An object may be known to mariners by a different name than that used by the local area. For example, harbour may be named after the town by the local community, but may be listed under the name of the operating ya... |
|
| 33617449 | muralito | Hello malcomh.seamark:information and seamark:information:pt could not be seamark tagging, but ¿removing seamark prefix is the right way to fix them?Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:information |
| muralito | The user try to add some warning to the waterway, so it seems to me that some kind of seamark:* tagging shoud be used, because is important for the navegation. |
| malcolmh | Sorry, I made a bad choice. Much better would be "waterway:information", since the mapped object is a waterway, not a seamark. If you agree with this, I will make those changes. |
| Skippern | I tagged them as seamark:information (rough translation) and seamark:information:pt (as in the source) for lack of better tags. This is information given in nautical charts, and should be tagged in a way that can be captured when producing such from OSM data |
|
| 40033886 | woodpeck | In this and a couple nearby changesets you seem to be re-adding data that was removed by DWG because it was illegally copied from a copyrighted source. What is your source for adding this information? |
| malcolmh | My source was the tags that remained after redaction. Those tags belong to a long-since abandoned tagging proposal, so I converted them to the non-deprecated seamark tags using the values in the remaining tags, in addition to a couple of default values that my editing tool generates (buoy shape &... |
|
| 33268593 | Gschaftlhuaba | Concerning the lighthouse in Monemvasia: Is there a special reason, why all the seamark metadata is added to a separate point in OSM instead of the building polygon itself plus a man_made=lighthouse tag? Secondly do you have any information whether the disused=yes is correct? Probably one should als... |
| malcolmh | If the light is located on the building, then it is a good idea to copy the node tags onto the building polygon & delete the node. If the beacon is a duplicate then delete it. I don't know whether the buildings are disused - try asking the original mapper. |
| Gschaftlhuaba | OK, thanks. I put a comment in the other changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/7850338 |
|
| 39196623 | malcolmh | Please note that the tag "seamark:type" can only take one value. This should be the master object. Other objects sharing the same node/way are implied by their attribute tags, or where they have no attributes, can be detailed in a "seamark:information" tag. |
| AdVerburg | I see, thank you. |
|
| 39036312 | Rom1 | Hi, what is your source for all these informations ?And some text is missing in "liaison entre les ducs d" https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4161268421Thanks |
| malcolmh | The data was extracted from http://www.vnf.fr/ecdis/data/Moselle.zip. The "national_information" value should be a French translation of the English "information" tag value. It looks as if the text has been truncated. |
| Rom1 | Have you understood the conditions written at http://www.vnf.fr/ecdis/ ? It is not compatible with the ODbL of OSM. |
| malcolmh | Oh dear! In that case I will remove all this data. |
| Rom1 | Unfortunately it's the only thing to do :( Perhaps, one day the licence status from VNF will change... |
|
| 38871521 | malcolmh | Please do not destroy recent on-the-ground surveys with out-of-date aerial photos. |
| Eugene13 | Sorry about that! In future I will be more carreful!Thank you for understanding! |
|
| 38677965 | KDDA | Updating seamarks? How is deleting 40 nodes updating?This is not a sea, its an inland waterway called Lower Lough Erne. |
| malcolmh | Whoops! Fat finger trouble on my part. - now reverted |
|
| 37516006 | malcolmh | OSM have requested that depth data should not be put into their DB. Depths may be added to sunken objects, but not isolated spot depth soundings or depth contours. Therefore please delete these nodes. |
| kallekaden | Hi malcolmh,excuse, I am German and have not possibly understood properly. is there to your request closer information? |
| woodpeck | Meerestiefen als Punktdaten mappen wir eigentlich nicht - wir mappen es, wenn irgendwo ein Wrack auf 123 Meter Tiefe liegt, aber nicht, wie tief das Wasser an einer beliebigen Stelle ist. |
| kallekaden | hi woodpeck,eine beliebige Stelle ist das nicht. Die Punkte kennzeichnen ein natürliches Fahrwasser, welches alljährlich von ca. 100 Seglern benutzt wird. Viele davon landen dabei auf den umliegenden Sandbänken. |
|
| 37225088 | chillly | Isn't this former drydock the one being converted into an outdoor theatre? If so, wouldn't be better to tag it as landuse = construction? |
| malcolmh | The amphitheatre is being constructed to sit over part of the dry dock, but all of the dock will remain intact. As soon as I can get close enough to do a survey, I will map the new construction. The question is, what would be suitable tagging for an open-air amphitheatre? |
| chillly | amenity=theatre with, perhaps, theatre=amphitheatre to differentiate it. I might be tempted to add building=yes and layer=1 too. Just because it doesn't have a roof, it still would be a building to me. It is a separate structure from the dock as the dock is listed so the theatre is being added witho... |
|
| 37097704 | DaveF | Hi Malcolmtagging waterway=riverbank is now not the preferred way to tag:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_detailsUsing natural=water, water=* allows data users to more easily determine whether it's a river, canal, lake etc.https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipe... |
| malcolmh | The preferred way to tag is the way the mapping community actually tags. Since that proposal was made, only 8% of waterways are so tagged. In fact more waterway=riverbank tags have been added since then that the total of natural=water+water=river/canal tags. |
| DaveF | Hi MalcolmBeing in the majority doesn't automatically make it correct nor a reason not to change. If a better way to tag is conceived, making it easier for the data to be used, then it should be adopted. As in previous occurrences this is a gradual process often brought about by messages like mine... |
| malcolmh | I do not buy the argument that this tag makes things easier for consumers. Those that I know of all use the waterway=river/canal tagged linear ways. Anyway, good luck trying to persuade the other 290,000 instances of your case! |
| DaveF | You appear to be misunderstanding. It's not the linear ways (waterway=river) that's the problem, but the polygon denoting the riverbanks.(waterway=riverbank).It's disappointing you can't see the clear benefit of not tagging canal banks as river banks. |
|
| 36565266 | malcolmh | "seamark:notice:depth_min" is not a valid seamark tag. What exactly are these objects? If you could describe them to me, I will be able to help you with the correct tags. |
| danbag | The purpose is to show to users the depth in that position.Another proble is to show to user the presence of kelps, floating long seaweed which prevent the navigation. I have seen you make a modification, the purpose is to fill the area with some drawing to show the kelps presence, in three state... |
| malcolmh | OSM do not want depth data in the DB, so you should delete these. There are two water depth projects underwsy that are building separate depth DBs. they are: http://www.teamsurv.eu/ & http://depth.openseamap.org/ |
| danbag | The projects are wonderful, but here in South America we are speaking about remote bays where in the near future and for a long long period nobody will works with these project..in the meantime the users of these remote bays cannot share the knowledge of the skipper like me .... in Italy we say &quo... |
| malcolmh | OK, so if you want to put this data in, then please do not use the "seamark:" namespace. This will then make it clear to DWG that these are not OpenSeaMap tags. Perhaps a tag like "min_depth=xxm"? |
| Skippern | There should be a seamark:* for areas with kelp, but this will be an area tag to render a specific fill-symbol or shade for the area, not for point depths. |
| danbag | Yes I know the kelp tag and I use it. Thanks. |
|
| 36447235 | AdVerburg | Malcolm, what is wrong with the object (a pole) colour and/or colour pattern? |
| malcolmh | The objects “light_minor” and “light_major” are simply lights without any details of the supporting structure. If you wish to specify the supporting structure, then you should use a seamark:type such as “beacon_special_purpose”, etc. Then you may specify its colou... |
|
| 29690337 | malcolmh | This polygon is not closed - needs completing! |
|
| 35705586 | malcolmh | This should be a "seamark:type=fairway", not a separation boundary. |
|
| 35371412 | mapper999 | Hi,the groyne markers are not beacons and should also not be rendered like beacons. They are small stone plates showing the ref and the length of the groynes like this one (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buhnenstein.jpg). I didn't find anywhere else where these are mapped, but I think usi... |
| malcolmh | Within the S57 object catalogue there is no such object as a "groyne_marker". The type "beacon_special_purpose" is a carch-all for any kind of marker. This tagging is the only way to make these objects visible in nautical charts. If this is not important to you, an alternative wo... |
| mapper999 | I have no idea about whether these marks have any importance for nautical charts. I live near the river and just found out what these stone markers actually mean a few days ago. As I didn't find any tagging for these things, I thought it is best to adapt the seamark:distance_mark for this purpose. I... |
|
| 34689572 | SomeoneElse | This is a changeset with a very large bounding box. What does "clear validation errors" mean? How am I, as a local mapper overlapped by this changeset supposed to know what you changed and on what basis and where? |
| malcolmh | Point taken. In future I will do these type of edits in small geographical areas |
|
| 33375346 | malcolmh | Please do not put depth data into the OSM DB. Instead see: http://depth.openseamap.org/ |
|
| 32853141 | malcolmh | What is the object "Enkeliberget"? A topmark cannot exist in isolation as it has to be mounted on top of another object, usually a beacon. |
| lars | Fixed, thanks. |
|
| 31890375 | archie | They do not? How should I tag depth data? |
| malcolmh | No depth data, either spot soundings on on nodes, nor depth contours on ways should be put into the OSM database. If you want to contribute depth data, then see: http://depth.openseamap.org/ for details of the OpenSeaMap crowd-sourcing depth project. |
|
| 30938944 | malcolmh | Yes it will appear on marine maps! This is an inappropriate use of the "landuse" tagging, which is explicitly for features on land. Also it is "tagging for the renderer" - mis-using tags in order to produce an effect on the streetmap.Please revert these and instead make a pro... |
|
| 30159006 | malcolmh | Fixed. There was already a seamark node there that I simply merged with this object. |
|
| 30164864 | malcolmh | Are you aware that you are deleting good data? If you did not intend to do this, please revert this. |
|
| 29496516 | malcolmh | The tag "seamark:type=rock" is inappropriate for islets. Ir should only be placed on nodes that are offshore. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:seamark:type%3Drock |
| CyrusDreams | When I searched for the tag "islet", I was referred to the overview page at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Tag:place%3DislandMost is in German, but in the English section the difference between rock and islet is made by size. Since the dimension of the objects was smaller th... |
| malcolmh | That wiki page is discussing values for the "place" key. Therefore, you would use "place=rock", not "seamark:type=rock" |
| CyrusDreams | It isn't discussing "place", it is discussing "place=island" and distinguishes this tag from others. In fact, taginfo shows only 6 hits for "place=rock" and zero for "place=rocks". That is a strong indication that the proper use of "rock" is in conju... |
| malcolmh | Sorry, I mis-read. The important thing is that an area which is tagged with "natural=coastline" cannot be tagged as "seamark:type=rock" as the definition of the latter is an object which is "awash or is below the water surface". An area within a coastline is by definiti... |
|
| 29427638 | malcolmh | The object at node #2705530745 is not missing! I drove past it this morning. |
| BeverleyKiter | Must have been a mistake. I don't recognise this as being something I edited! |
|
| 29414275 | malcolmh | Category=8? How did this happen? Is is related to the preset ticket? |
| Skippern | Ouch, didn't see that, must be from the preset as well, just as the colouring I mentioned on github |
|
| 29363719 | malcolmh | How can buoys be survey points? |
|
| 27587816 | SomeoneElse | http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2075957897 seems to have a duplicate "seamark:name" and "name". Is there any reason for this? Are there any situations in which a "seamark:name" for something would actually be different to the "name" (as, for example, a bri... |
| malcolmh | The value of the tag “seamark:name” is the name of the object as known to sailors (i.e. as it appears on other nautical charts) This is often different to the local vernacular name, which will be the value of the “name” tag. Having the two types of name tag guards against edi... |