Talk:Tag:landuse=quarry

How to tag former / abandoned quarries?

The English page does not tell anything about how to map them, the German page tells to use Tag:man_made=embankment in combination with name and/or note - so a very general/generic mapping. Why not use lifecycle prefix abandoned: ? At least for a quarry that could be re-activated, although reuqiring considerable investment, it seems to be transporting most semantics.--Schoschi (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Germans are known to make up their own standards without asking. While man_made=embankment may not be wrong, it is a kind of micro mapping that does not represent the information of the quarry as a whole. In order to map name=*, resource=*, start_date=* etc. you need an areal OSM object.

There have been various life cycle concepts around for ages and this will be a controversial issue as long as OSM exists. Beware that each of the approaches has its pros and cons, and please don't try to introduce a standard, let alone to "correct" existing OSM objects in mass edits.

For quarries that are out of use, I prefer landuse=quarry + disused=yes (as long as they look similar to active quarries and are easily reactivatable) or abandoned=yes (when covered by soil and trees etc.). I do not use lifecycle prefixes, because they are used to hide things from renderers. These prefixes are essentially just another syntax for note=*, containing messages to other mappers on objects that should be ignored by applications. We do not want applications to ignore abandoned quarries. These quarries still exists, they are visible on the ground, and they are interesting for a range of users such as collectors of minerals or fossils, geologists, cavers, biologists, and motocross riders. Abandoned quarries are also used as venues for dangerous actions such as explosions, shooting, and civil defense training. The fact that quarrying has haltet, does not change the major characteristics of the quarry. Think of a bridge that's no more in use. It's still a bridge, and you have good reasons to tag it with man_made=bridge, not abandoned:man_made=bridge. The latter case would just hide the bridge from the renderers, and map users would rightfully ask: Why is this f* bridge not shown in my map?

--Fkv (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I can agree your conclusion, especially that a quarry not in use still carries many characteristincs of a quarry, hence shall be tagged as quarry combined with disused=yes instead of lifecycle prefix which hides de-facto characteristics in renderers. If no other input comes, I will adapt lines 573987220, 574073469, 574073464 and 574073467 --Schoschi (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I just adapted the EN & DE wiki pages as well as the mentioned lines. --Schoschi (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As an update, according to Taginfo, as of February 2022:

• disused:landuse=quarry has 832 uses
• landuse=quarry + disused=yes has 5,115 uses
• abandoned:landuse=quarry has 899 uses
• landuse=quarry + abandoned=yes has 2,688 uses

The use of disused/abandoned=yes is clearly favoured more than the disused:/abandoned: lifecycle tagging scheme by mappers (at a ratio of 6:1 and 3:1 respectively). I note that the abandoned:=* page specifically says not to use the lifecycle prefix on quarries. I'm therefore going to update the main page to reflect this. Casey boy (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

[1] - Are you sure that mention of disused=yes should be eradicated? @Geozeisig: have you discussed this change anywhere? (that is not a problem - it seems to be added without wider discussion either, but I think that at least both tagging schemas should be mentioned and lifecycle prefix does not seem to be optimal to me here) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

abandoned:landuse=quarry and landuse=quarry + abandoned=yes has the same meaning. Only abandoned:landuse=quarry is not rendered, which is desirable in this case.

disused:landuse=quarry and landuse=quarry + disused=yes has the same meaning. But I would prefer disused=yes in this case because it is then still rendered. With this in mind, I would like to improve the wiki page so that it is clearer.

If you want to keep the paragraph, I can copy it back in. (There are two tagging schemes...)--geozeisig (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No, disused=yes and abandoned=yes don't mean the same as disused:*=* and abandoned:*=*. disused=yes and abandoned=yes mean that the features are still there, while abandoned:*=* means they are not. Specifically with quarries, I tag those which are not currently in use, but still look similar to active quarries and like they can be reactivated easily, with disused=yes, whereas I set abandoned=yes on quarries that have be closed permanently, often covered with trees already. They still serve as orientation landmarks, and they are still valuable for collectors or minerals. For those reasons, it would be completely wrong to hide those quarries from rendering.

Yes, please restore the paragraph. And please change your habit of changing wiki pages all the time without asking. You can't "improve" something that is already right, and you can't decide things on your own that affects thousands of mappers and millions of data consumers. --Fkv (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Only abandoned:landuse=quarry is not rendered, which is desirable in this case." -not necessarily, for example for my uses (depiction of landforms/landscape/terrain rather than economical activity) rendering both used and disused quarries is preferable Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Non standard landuse=quarry icon

Geozeisig added a non standard icon for the landuse=quarry tag page. Personally I've never seen it on any map and after having done some searches i can't find his neither. I always find the classic crossed tools which is the same as the mining icon. Logic! On his user discussion page, I've asked him to give several sources where he has seen his version or if it was a personal proposition. We should standardize OSM elements as much as possible.

SHARCRASH (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Geozeisig added the screenshot with the crossed tools. It's me who added the other icon. It is used e.g. in geological maps by Geologische Bundesanstalt and in hiking maps by Freytag & Berndt. It already appeared in the maps created by the land survey in the 1870ies. Of course you can use the same icon as for underground mines, or no icon at all, but in sophisticated or specialized maps you need a specific symbol for quarries. --Fkv (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The icon is extremely difficult to decipher without a legend. What Geologische Bundesanstalt uses on their map is fine because there's a legend, or it's a purely local convention of that site. I don't think it should be advertized internationally, as it is never used elsewhere in the world, or even in Austria only for all other maps. This icon looks more like a bridge or bump, not a quarry (and in my opinion it is very bad, it should better be mirrored vertically, it is completely counter intuitive! as well it may look too mush like some letters in some scripts with native square styles, and will cause confusion for example in Korean or Hebrew). So yes the crossed tools are far better ! I think they used that pictogram on their geological site only because they needed many more pictograms for very precise classification of geological features (so this pictogram makes sense only when used with lot of other geological pictograms; we don't have this very detailed classification in OSM maps; my opinion is that this pictogram should be used on specialized OSM renderings for geological maps, but not on a general purpose map; it's highly probable that among the list of pictograms they used, they have also used many more that are aossicated in OSM to completely unrelated non-geological features, such as circles/disks, stars, asterisks, crossed lines, triangles... And these geological pictograms are probably only monochromatic for rendering on printed geological maps, where they use also very different color schemes or patterns for natural coverage of lands or undergrounds). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 16:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The icon is not self-explanatory, but every map should come with a legend, and it's certainly the only specific quarry icon that is in use. When you become aware of any other icon, feel free to add it to the wiki. It's fine when all of those are documented. Remember that the rendering examples are just examples, not recommendations. --Fkv (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

But the displayed icon contradicts other non-geological uses and the common sense. So no! This is only for a specific (proprietary!) rendering on two specific sites that sell their maps and are not even usabel as legal sources for OSM ! Best to avoid it completely. These sites can still build their own renderers with their proprietary icons in their stylesheet ! For everyone else on OSM, this non-standard icon looks more like a bridge, or a door, or a tunnel entrance, not a mine, and most mines don't have any tunnel entrance, they are digged on the land surface, possibly then filled with water with a lake/pond when out of use. And as I said, it will not be internationalisable for all non-Latin scripts (including default OSM maps that display multiple scripts). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 18:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is used not only in geological maps. See my links above. The survey of 1870 was made by the Austro-Hungarian geographical institute that was responsible for mapping the whole Austro-Hungarian empire which included today's Hungary, Czechia, Slowakia, Slowenia and parts of Poland, Ukraine, Italy and Romania. This institute was one of world's leaders in mapping technology, with famous cartographs such as Theodor Scheimpflug (aerophotogrammetry), Theodor von Orel (inventor of the stereoautograph), Arthur von Hübl (who founded Serviço Geográfico do Exército in Brazil) and Hans Rohn. Mapping style of that institute should be common knowledge among everyone who is interested in cartography. If you did not know the quarry symbol until now, I can only wonder. --Fkv (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: The fact that most maps are not free, is one of the reasons why we are working on OSM. The old maps, however, are free, because the copyrights expired. You can find some of them on Mapire, oldmapsonline.org and Wikimedia Commons. --Fkv (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please proove that with a really open/free example map really showing this symbol. For now I've not found any use on the websites you give, where all is proprietary. For me these symbols only mean a bridge, or door, or tunnel entrance, and they look too similar to some letters of scripts already used on the OSM maps (even if there's no ambiguity in the old imperial Austro-Hungarian maps limited to use only Latin or Cyrillic letters for their rendered labels, most often in an even more distinctive serif style, or old Latin Fraktur styles). And anyway, we'll never import old maps from the 19th century in OSM (the precision is not good enough, and items are most probably outdated)! — Verdy_p ^(talk) 20:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Examples: [2] [3] legend

You can't import anything directly from these maps, as they are bitmap images. But they are an invaluable source for names (mountains names, valley names etc.). --Fkv (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Note the symbol shown is not exclusive to Austrian maps, it is for example also indicated to be used in Soviet military maps (see http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/pdf/soviet.pdf - symbol 26, third variant) - although i have never actually seen it being used in one of these maps. Calling it a common symbol for quarries is probably an exaggeration.

Keep in mind also that landuse=quarry in OSM is very different in scope to what maps typically indicate as a quarry (which in contrast to OSM usually does not include open pit mines for ore/coal extraction or peat cuttings).

--Imagico (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You just gave your own reason ("Keep in mind") that the symbol we represetn in OSM does not mean what geological maps want to show (with more specific criteria). So what's the point of keeping this proposal, which is not for the same concept, is not easily internationalizable (limited to Latin/Cyrillic, possibly Greek, but it causes confusion too with letter pi and Cyrillic pe in capitals unless the map uses a serif style for their labels). Given the limited scope of use, it should not be given as a good example. The documented OSM icons should be international and not confusable with basic letter forms and should be representing open concepts (not proprietary concepts or those that are in too old sources to be kept as is). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 23:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Also your first actual reference you gave (only in Russian) does not use the symbol alone but as an annotation within another pictography for the quary themselves (delimited by their borders) and it signals the Kam case because it actually symbolizes the tunnel entry in that quarry. An open quary or mine (within any tunnel entry) uses the two crossed tools which is then more generic ! So I am again right: it does not indicate a quarry by itself, but the tunnel entry, and as you see in the Russian document, not all quarries have it, because not all quarries have tunnels (quarries with tunnels is a minority case, most of them digged directly at land level and left open in the air; when they fall out of use, they become just lakes/ponds, or are possibly filled again with mountains of debris cumulated all around when the quarry was exploited, or they are surfaced to build something else if water flooding is not a problem). Russians also took care of using a thin symbols that is not confusable with Cyrillic letter pe which is bolder in labels, notably because this was used also for monochromatic maps in black and white ! But the proposed node symbols is black and too bold, and we have many frequent labels with letters in the same weight also in black. So if you really want this symbol, it should be white within a gray disc, not a black pi like glyph on a transparent background where it will be unsuitable for all international OSM maps (in colors or even if rendered in B&W where the black symbol should be on a white disc circled by thin black border). — Verdy_p ^(talk) 23:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The quarry symbol in the russian map legend has nothing to do with tunnels. As far as I know, it depicts a rectangular block of stone, lying on the ground. Such blocks are typical quarry products and used for masonry. --Fkv (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If you had ever seen a greek Π or cyrillic П, you would have noticed that it does not have the tails at the bottom. You also seem to be unaware that map symbols MUST be simple shapes (because they would otherwise be either illegible or they would occupy to much space), so there will always be similarities with some characters that exist somewhere on Earth. There are hundreds of scripts, and there are about 100000 characters in Chinese alone. Even when you just take latin script, you'll notice that the letters o and O and the digit 0 look like circles, so you would need to abandon any circles in maps according to your argumentation. When you add Greek, you need to abandon triangles as well because of the letter delta. Are you serious? --Fkv (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm serious. symbols used on maps are always far from letters, and use distinctive colors. A single black stroke on transparent background is not good enough for use on rendered maps with so many small black strokes and labels (labels are made readable on top of the map by adding some sem-transparent contrasting shadow to avoid them to fuse on the background

Anyway I still think that your symbols does not represent the quarry itself but only a tunnel entrance for some types of quarries or mines, or generic tunnels for railways: it represents the open entry "door" to the tunnel. It is not suitable for vertical digging (wells, oil extraction, coal extraction, and any kind of forage) where the symbols is usually the tower for elevators, or an oil pump...

almost all quarries have no tunnel at all, only a minority, for a good reason: it would be impossible to extract the very heavy stones at reasonnable costs, and most quarries need to be open to extract stones by explosives and high volumes of pressurized water (extracting this water with pumps is extremely costly if done in a tunnel, as it has to be also evacuated constantly), and to allow trucks to transport the products, as well the tunnels allow limited extraction and quarries in tunnels are extremely dangerous to collapse (and destroy definitely significant part of the resource). Even your Russian source use crossed tools for almost all quarries (the symbol is only an exceptional annotation for rare tunnel entrances) ! — Verdy_p ^(talk) 10:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fkv, I contacted him and apologized. Geozeisig gave his opinion though on his talk page: "It is not used in carto.". The examples you provided which can be verified easily are all too old and do not represent today's standard. So, here is a solid recent source, a very detailed international chart (provided by SHOM, France) of present and past carto/topographic details. PDF The English translation is in grey under the French text in black. On page 5 you find the explanation of each column. Page 20 or search for "quarry", the symbol for large scales is again the crossed tools as being the present standard symbol for quarries. For small scales, they don't have any symbol, they just represent that curved line for the steep transitions (cliffs/embankment...). On the same page, you can find the symbol that you proposed: however it has a different meaning (battery, small fort) and is even obsolete, see the † in the corner of the cell.

Another solid active source is linked USA government's interactive map which shows also the crossed tools symbol, select the topographic view on the left top corner.

I gave examples from old maps because their copyrights are expired. Geologische Bundesanstalt and Freytag&Berndt (see links above) use the symbol still today, in their recent publications, and they probably will do so for generations to come. You and Verdy_p did a good job demonstrating that standards in France are different, but please accept that France is not the World. The wiki page does not claim that is THE common symbol, it just says that it is ONE common symbol, and you got plenty of evidence for that. --Fkv (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Imagico, the Russian source you provided is ambiguous and again very old, great chances it's even outdated. Page 13, nbr. 26 has indeed the proposed symbol but as a variant, we should not use a specific variant but a standardized symbol and it's inside that curved topographic symbol for a steep transition which is consistent between all the maps to represent quarries (as well as my sourced PDF on large scaled maps). Page 52, nbr. 443 does not use to represent a quarry but again the curved steep transition to show that the terrain is/has been exploited.

By the way, on my first message here, I didn't mention the fact that this symbol is different than the present symbol used to render the area in the OSM carto. Both should be the same!

The Carto symbol is in the next line. There is no Carto example for a point symbol, because Carto lacks a point symbol for quarries, just as it lacks symbols for many other features. Remember that we don't map for a specific renderer, and for the same reason we don't document rendering of just one renderer. --Fkv (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The crossed tools seems very likely to be the present standard and we should remove the proposed .

-- SHARCRASH (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You cannot call something "proposed" that has been in official use for centuries. --Fkv (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fkv you didn't read correctly, i gave:

- an international chart provided by a French institution and most important it's currently in use!

- also a USA source currently in use via the government's website, just select the topographic view on the left top corner or here is a topo chart from USGS!

- In extra, here is a Canadian chart, the cliffs symbol is shown and the crossed tools for "mining area".

- In extra, a chart from Ordnance Survey UK, it does not show your symbol but round shaped cliffs .

- In extra, it's easy to see a worldwide general view of todays symbols used for quarries, just use the image search from Google, Ecosia... we mostly see the crossed tools or the cliffs, yours never shows up.

OSM does not want outdated standards. You provided outdated sources and i only saw once the symbol you proposed on a document more than half a century old. At least, I provided recent and still in use sources, not only for France but US, Canada, GB... A symbol that has been in use for a century is not necessarily valid now because standards change and groups, institutions, people, all in all standards have to evolve and become better, clearer, easier... So, it's clear you proposed an outdated symbol! Are you that hardcore traditionalist to refuse what is valid now? Can't you evolve with your time?

-- SHARCRASH (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

First, I did not propose a symbol, I documented it. Second, it is not outdated, as I already wrote to you on 00:32, 9 March 2018. Which part of "Geologische Bundesanstalt and Freytag&Berndt (see links above) use the symbol still today, in their recent publications" don't you understand? --Fkv (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Fkv, you don't even remember what you wrote in the Quarry page! I quote you: "This is one common point symbol (to be used when mapped as a node, or when generalized) for quarries." It's not even a proposition, it's an instruction! Your recent sources/publications that are visible are about HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS therefore OUTDATED. The others are not accessible/verifiable, so they are even specific copyrighted property, therefore not usable publicly. I do understand your attitude, you don't accept the facts.

-- SHARCRASH (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

When you read the "to be used" phrase as an instruction, we can change it to "which can be used".

The recent maps I mentioned are copyright protected (as is OSM data, by the way), but easily verifyable, as every person on Earth can purchase them for a good price or view them in a library for free. The symbol itself is not copyright protected, because it has been in use for so long.

--Fkv (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Former quarry is now a lake

How to correctly map a former quarry that now is a lake (there are multiple of them in my neighbourhood). According to the wiki both abandoned: and historic=quarry can be applied.

An example can be found here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138836602 In openstreetmap.org this shows up as a lake. However in OsmAnd this is rendered as a quarry, not a lake. So which one is correct? Or how to correctly tag them? Or have different areas for both? And if yes, which should take presedence? --SLMapper1 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Normally, and probably in your example too, the lake occupies only a part of the former quarry area. In your example, you need separate objects anyway for quarry and lake, as they have different names. For abandoned quarries, I have always been advocating landuse=quarry + abandoned=yes, because those quarries still exist, so it's not right to hide them from renderers with tags like abanoned=quarry + old_name, as happened in your example. I wonder why Osmand renders the quarry anyway. I wouldn't expect any renderer to render the non-standard tag abandoned=quarry, but Osmand apparently does, as I can't see any other tag indicating the quarry. If you use my suggested tagging, Mapnik/Carto will render both the quarry and the lake, and the lake will get precedence due to its lower size (and maybe lakes get always precedence over landuse, I don't know). If you don't want the gray quarry to be rendered around the lake, you can tag it with layer=-1. Then you will only see the lake and the orchard. I don't know if layer=-1 is the optimum solution, but it cannot be totally wrong, as the quarry is more or less buried beneath the lake and the orchard. Note that layer=-1 hides the landuse from renderers but not from Nominatim etc. That's an important advantage of landuse=quarry + abandoned=yes + layer=-1 over abandoned=quarry or abandoned:landuse=quarry. --Fkv (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest landuse=quarry + abandoned=yes for quarry, as it is still a quarry. Lake will need to be mapped separately, so there should not be a problem anyway. Even if both take the same area (vertical walls?) then you can place tags describing both on one object Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the good explanation. Mateusz Konieczny :-) I will follow your suggestions. --SLMapper1 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have examples (or can provide me an overpass query), where such combination already exists? --SLMapper1 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/15WX “landuse=quarry and natural=water global” Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Similar topic in DE talk:Tag:landuse=quarry

Quarry products

We see many bins, bordered by concrete blocks, where the products of quarry mining are being sold... different grades of rock / pebble / stone, at a landscaping supply wholesale store. How to tag these bins? Jidanni (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)