Talk:Key:location

Examples of use

I have moved the following text to the talk page from the main article.

• in context of traffic sign=*: may be used to designate the location of a traffic sign where the mapped element does not necessarily correspond to the physical location of the sign. For example, see this traffic sign node.

Is this really a suitable dual-use for location? Could the free-form text given in this example not better be contained within a note=* or a note:traffic_sign=* etc.

-- PeterIto 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

location=surface with level>0

Despite location=surface is useful, should we use it with level=*>0?
IMHO, level=*>0 would be suitable with location=overground not to mention location=overhead.
This would be the only difference I see between location=surface and location=overground Fanfouer (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would use location=surface only where it helps to clarify situation. Maybe there is some situation with level=*>0 where it would be helpful, maybe not Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide examples please? location=surface+level=2 doesn't sound clear to me. Fanfouer (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Atypical situation where 2 is used for for ground level? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I would expect it for buildings on slope - like http://hammerbud.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Ruciana_front-900x564.jpg As result, there may be buildings with multiple levels, each one at least partially on surface. It may be purely theoretical situation. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To me the only sensible interpretation would seem that the level/layer relate to another object: there is a building and something is on the surface of level=2. Not really sure what it would be good for though.RicoZ (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

rooftop

There are 3 values with apparently identical meaning, "roof", "rooftop" and "rooftop". Why would we require for "a building" "that [it] is used for something else."? And what does this "something else" refer to, building? The thing that is on top? I would see "roof" and "rooftop" as synonyms for "a feature is mounted on the roof of a building." location=* is a tag about the location of something, we should not mix this with usage. --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

rooftop value is repeated in the power substation section but it's the same as general list above.

The point is to set the substation on top of a building which have another destination. It stands for "this is a power substation, but the building under isn't".

I'm ok to merge the two roof and rooftop in a single roof. Fanfouer (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We should distinguish the power functions and the buildings by their extent, we do this already. No need to put usage meaning in the location tag. --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No point to distinguish usage. Building and rooftop substation have to be two different features : building=yes and another or power=substation + location=rooftop + layer=*. I see no usage here do you ? Fanfouer (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, these have to be different features. My comment was referring to this part of the rooftop definition: "Located on top of a building that is used for something else." --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This sentence is just here to justify the necessity to distinguish features. If the building itself is a substation, then no need to use location=roof and power=substation goes on the building=yes feature. No usage distinction intended in location=roof nor in any other location=* values. Fanfouer (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a general definition for the location tag, and if there is a shop on the rooftop of another shop, why not using the location=rooftop tag nonetheless? I understand why it was put, but it bears the risk of unnecessary/unwanted exclusion of objects. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Despite the roof value was introduced with substations, there is no restriction to use it with other objects. I agree with the edit you made, no problem Fanfouer (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Great you agree with the edit (that's what I thought from reading your previous comments).--Dieterdreist (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I personally feel that location=rooftop would be a better value than location=roof: It makes it clear it's about things on top of the roof (and not "in the roof" or other possible misunderstandings). The usage numbers are of course leaning in the other direction.

Also, I think the definition of roof/rooftop should be reworded to avoid the word "mounted". A roof garden or parking space isn't "mounted" on the roof, but could still be tagged as location=rooftop. --Tordanik 13:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both notions, have replaced ’’mounted’’ with located but didn’t further touch roof due to usage numbers. Still I do encourage everyone to use rooftop for clarity.—Dieterdreist (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Something B: I can see that you have deprecated location=rooftop and also @Tguen: you have just deprecated rooftop=*. Was this the result of a discussion or vote somewhere? Did you see this discussion here? The location=* page still says that "rooftop" makes it clear that the feature is on top of the roof. (I agree with @Dieterdreist: and @Tordanik: here, as it makes it clear that it's not about something that is in the roof - in the attic, or what OSM calls a roof level - and we normally talk about rooftop bars, rooftop swimming pools, etc. not about roof bars and roof pools.) Anyway, I thought that either some discussion on how to best map rooftop features would be good, or if there already is clear consensus then the Wiki documentation could be improved a lot. For example, should a garden:type=roof_garden also be tagged with location=roof or is that redundant? Should a rooftop feature also get a level=* tag although it's not actually inside the building but on top of it? What about features that are actually in the roof? (What is the relationship between level=*, building:levels=* and roof:levels=*? If I have missed a recent discussion about rooftop features, could you please point me to it? (Sorry everyone for the many edits, I clearly don't know how to get MediaWiki to do what I want) -- Osmuser63783 (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this Osmuser63783, I have reverted the edit that marked rooftop as deprecated for the moment, so we can see if we can reach consensus how to proceed. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, location=rooftop is more clear. Something B (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think a discussion was necessary in the case of rooftop=* as it was only used about 500 times, nearly all of which appear to be an import of helipads. I have no preference on roof vs rooftop values, but I think it's clear that location=* is better. Tguen (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. How about we leave rooftop=* deprecated and add comments to the pages location=rooftop and location=roof that people may wish to use rooftop because it is less ambiguous? And maybe also to other pages that suggest location=roof. The only thing that bugs me slightly about this is that although most people here agree that rooftop is better, roof is far more widely used (over 600k times, mostly with solar panels). But maybe that will change over time if users of the tag agree with this argument? (And it's not really a problem for data consumers to have two tags for the same thing, whereas one whose meaning is ambiguous is problematic.) -- Osmuser63783 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Like some of the other participants in this discussion, I've previously argued that rooftop is a somewhat more self-explanatory value than roof. However, usage stats are overwhelmingly in favour of roof, which is used over 600000 times. Therefore, I think we should accept that situation, standardize on location=roof, and allow this wiki page to reflect that. --Tordanik 13:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

location=underground for amenity=recycling

For a discussion on this, see here, in short, some people like location=semi_underground or location=partly_underground but the drawback is that that introduces a new value without adding too much clarity.
Emvee (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You should better post a summary here and not just a link. I agree with you that location=underground is fine for the buried kind of trash container/recycling collectors. In the end, the container is underground although there will usually be some kind of access hole/duct overground through which you throw the material. —Dieterdreist (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, Emvee (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. For clarity, I was referring to systems like this, where the container really isn't "semi_undergorund" but truly underground. I agree that the underground value would not fit for things that are half buried, but the other half is sticking out of the ground. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)