Add rendering for man_made=adit

[Adamant36]

Rendering of man_made=adit was mentioned in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3635#issuecomment-455189700 as a way to help the map appeal to more rural people. Plus, I just think it would be a cool thing to render. So I thought id open an issue for it.

The tag currently has 9 ,136 uses, most of which are nodes. So the numbers are there. All it needs an icon, which conveniently has an example on the wiki for.

Here's the usage chart also. It looks like it has had a pretty brisk increase in usage for a good number of years.

[matkoniecz]

I have no experience with such features but it looks like a good idea at the first sight, or at least I see no reasons to decline it.

[imagico]

Like with #3703 i would suggest to look into the practical use of the tag, in particular what spectrum of things the tag is used for and what other tagging concepts compete with that.

[matkoniecz]

@Adamant36 Can you do such review? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=adit has link to overpass turbo query in top-right.

Let me know if you need some help with overpass or something else in this checks.

[jragusa]

Adits are usually not allowed for general public because of security reasons. When adit are closed, they are sealed by a gate.

Is it a good landmark ? I'm not convinced. First because they do not usually stand out as depicted in the picture of the wiki page. And secondly, because authority prefer to keep people away from this feature. BTW, I would be interested if such features are indicated on official topographic maps.

[matkoniecz]

First because they do not usually stand out as depicted in the picture of the wiki page

Do you have a good image (I wanted to add it to Wiki as an additional one to not mislead about typical prominence). But from my trawling of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Adits most adits with photos (I know, biased sample) are fairly prominent ones

[Adamant36]

Like with #3703 i would suggest to look into the practical use of the tag

@imagico, I left a comment about it there. Maybe you could respond to it. In general, I think basing rendering on practical usage alone is a bad metric. Although, I will still look into it. I'm not an expert on adit's though and I'm sure a lot of these are tagged in fairly remote areas. So I'm not sure what I'll be able to take away from looking at practical usage.

I don't think whoever decided to add an icon for caves was a spelunker and made sure the places tagged as caves weren't just small holes in the ground being wrongly tagged before rendering it. Although I could be wrong.

most adits with photos (I know, biased sample) are fairly prominent ones

It seems like a lot of them have historical value also and can be important tourist spots or things to look at along hiking trails. I know they are where I live.

authority prefer to keep people away from this feature.

I think they are neutral on the closed off ones. Since people can't get into them (probably open ones also in some cases). Some of them are part of tourist things also. As can be seen in the photos below. Maybe rendering them would the benefit of people adding access tags though, which could help mitigate some of that. It would be good to tell them apart from caves on the map also (maybe some adits are miss tagged as caves to render. Which rendering them could help fix).

Authorities aren't exactly hiding any of those. It seems like they encourage them being visited.

[imagico]

You are free to look or not to look at use of tags and the tagging context. My suggestions are meant to help you decide which tags make sense to render and what might be a suitable way to render them.

But it is equally fine if you just open the issue and let others more familiar with the matter look at things in more detail and decide on if and how to render this feature.

In the end looking at and familiarizing yourself with the nature of what you try to render (which is always the actual data in the OSM database and not some abstract concept of a tag) is an essential part of style development - and in many cases as important as the technical skills to implement your design idea.

[Adamant36]

You are free to look or not to look at use of tags and the tagging context. My suggestions are meant to help you decide which tags make sense to render and what might be a suitable way to render them.

I know. I wasn't faulting you for suggesting it. I've been unsure what rendering metrics are best for a while now and anything helps. So I appreciate that you brought it up as an alternative. Generally though, I think its bad practice to not render something based only on instances of miss-tagging, not that I'm saying your advocating doing that here. Some metrics are more prone to bias then other's though and the more it can be eliminated the better in my opinion.

Personally, in this instance I tend to lean more toward the tag being approved and therefore having wide community acceptance as reasons to render it, not so much what the actual usage is. Although I'm sure most of them are tagged properly.

But it is equally fine if you just open the issue and let others more familiar with the matter look at things in more detail and decide on if and how to render this feature.

I know I don't have any ultimate say in the decision since I'm not a maintainer, but can I not both open the issue and give reasons why I think the thing should be rendered? If its better to "just open the issue" and not add the extra details, I'm fine doing it that way instead. I don't want to do something if its not a help to anyone. When @kocio-pl was the only maintainer he seemed to prefer a lot of discussion and details about things, but I can understand if other maintainers might prefer less of that.

[wilmaed]

All it needs an icon, which conveniently has an example on the wiki for.

https://github.com/wilmaed/foo/blob/master/adit_.svg

https://github.com/wilmaed/foo/blob/master/adit__.svg

[Adamant36]

@wilmaed, thanks. I can probably do a PR for it after the conversation about rendering it or not gets worked out.

[wilmaed]

Like the OSM-Map historic.place, I would only use the "Hammer and pick"-Icon, if there is the resource tag.

A bunker adit (without resource tag): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2215161630

Source: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=322755#p322755

[Adamant36]

Hhmm, interesting discussion. I'm not sure what to make of it. I see that was in 2013 though. Haven't none mining tunnels been covered by the "tunnel" tag since then though? I doubt miss use of adit for those other things, like military bunkers if I read it correctly, is really that high anymore.

[wilmaed]

Not every mine/adit is for mining. The german community will tag this Luftschutzstollen (Luftschutzstollen Gaishalde) as an adit (not as a bunker): Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftschutzstollen https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1894748295 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftschutzstollen#/media/File:Bibi_Luftschutzstollen_Gaishalde.jpg

An adit with 2 entrances is still an adit and not a tunnel (even if you use one entrance as an exit).

[matkoniecz]

@wilmaed Can you document this on the OSM Wiki? If there is doubt is it correct tagging or a common mistake I recommend discussion on tagging mailing list or equivalent.

[Adamant36]

An adit with 2 entrances is still an adit and not a tunnel (even if you use one entrance as an exit).

So then its miss-tagging to tag these none mining things as adits? It seems like they are adits, but then it also seems like they aren't. I'm confused :confused:. You'll have to link to the mailing list discussion if you discuss it there.

[wilmaed]

So then its miss-tagging to tag these none mining things as adits?

Only if you define an adit "only for mining resources". This is too strict for these historic objects.

You'll have to link to the mailing list discussion if you discuss it there.

I will not jump into a snake pit or touch a nest of vipers :)

Guess: adit for resources or an adit to protect people:

Luftschutzstollen (bunker)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck/adit.

[wilmaed]

natural=cave_entrance is misused for adits:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1449303526 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1449303524 ...

These adits/Luftschutzstollen are man_made (not natural): http://www.geheimprojekte.at/ls_ternitz-blindendorf.html

[wilmaed]

@Adamant36 A proposal for an extended definition exists in OSM Talk: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dadit

There are adits for non-mining purposes, especially old air raid shelters ...

I propose to change "An adit is a (nearly) horizontal entrance to the underground, by which resources can be extracted or a mine can be entered, ventilated or drained of water. The visible portal of the adit is mapped as a node." to "An adit is a artificial, (nearly) horizontal entrance to the underground. Most adits are built as a means to extract resources, drain a mine of water or provide access to other parts of the mine. The visible portal of the adit is mapped as a node." (edits in italics). See, for reference, the article of the german wikipedia, which describes an adit as a means to access a Grubenbau, which is defined as "any subsurface cavity created by miners", regardless of purpose of said Grubenbau. --Gormo (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2018

[Adamant36]

I will not jump into a snake pit or touch a nest of vipers :)

Can't say I blame you there.

So are you against the hammer and pick for none mining adits? It seems like its a universally recognized symbol for them. Even for none mining ones (most of which use to be mines at one point from my research). Plus, it probably took those tools to dig a lot of those places originally.

A proposal for an extended definition exists in OSM Talk:

So where are we at with this then? I'm still ewing and awing over the pictures.

[jeisenbe]

Adits are usually not allowed for general public because of security reasons. When adit are closed, they are sealed by a gate.

Yes, small mines are shown on USGS topo maps, with this symbol.

Not every mine/adit is for mining. The german community will tag a Luftschutzstollen (Luftschutzstollen Gaishalde) as an adit

In British English, the word adit is only used for a horizontal entrance to a mine: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adit

However, I understand that the usage of similar words in other languages can affect the use of tags.

In this case, since the German adits are also made by mining, even though not all are for mineral extraction, I believe the same symbol is appropriate. The crossed mattock and hammer represents the tools used by miners to create the shaft or adit, not the produce of the mine.

We should also consider if the same rendering should be used for man_made=mineshaft (8849 uses) and historic=mineshaft (7 745 uses) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=mineshaft https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=mine_shaft

[Adamant36]

We should also consider if the same rendering should be used for man_made=mineshaft (8849 uses) and historic=mineshaft (7 745 uses)

I was thinking that myself. The symbol would probably work for all three. I had actually planned to open issues for them both after this one either gets rejected or rendered, but I didn't want to bring them up here necessarily so the conversation can stay as on topic as possible and devolve to a discussion about other tags or whatever. Not that I'm saying I have anything against you bringing them up here though.

[jeisenbe]

@Adamant36, were you still considering submitting a PR for this? While there is some disagreement about how many additional svg icon symbols can be added to the map, the great majority of adits and mine shafts are in rural areas where crowding is not a big problem, and I believe this symbol will be quite intuitive in most places. So this would be an example of a symbol that I would support adding (rather than, say, yet another type of shop).

[Adamant36]

Yeah, id love to see them rendered. So id 100% do it, but I don't feel like putting in the time or effort if @imagico is just going to shot it down. So I'm waiting until the icon issue is dealt with before putting the work into it. I'm totally willing to do before then though if @imagico gives his ok on it. I don't see any reason why he can't make a judgement about its merits intially, before its a fully tested PR.

[imagico]

Independent of the question of the long term strategy on point symbol rendering in this style (see #3635) i can mainly point to what i wrote in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3703#issuecomment-469659265. An analysis of actual use of the tag in OSM as well as semantically related tags (like the mentioned man_made=mineshaft and historic=mine_shaft but also, historic=mine - 6500 uses, man_made=mine - 6000 uses, mostly in the US and landuse=quarry - 36k uses on nodes) would be an essential prerequisite for deciding on rendering it in this style as well as suitability of possible symbols for this.

[jeisenbe]

@Adamant36, I agree that it would be nice to check how the feature is being used, since there were also concerns about a number of tunnels, bunkers and underground storage features which are called adits in German-speaking areas. If you use JOSM to download all of the man_made=adit (and perhaps the mineshaft / mine_shaft features) you could check where tag is used in a few different countries.

It would be interested to check some of the nodes tags landuse=quarry too - are many of these mistagged adits or mineshafts? Probably they are just quarry featues that haven't yet been mapped as areas, but it would be interesting to check.

I know this takes more time, but it can also be fun

[Adamant36]

I agree that it would be nice to check how the feature is being used

Yeah, I seem to remember that being an issue before. I'll check it out when I get some time. I actually got in a discussion with someone on the wiki because they changed the historic=mine page to say they could be mapped on areas. I had assumed a historic mine as an area would just be a quarry. It's really clear from the wiki if landuse=quarry is suppose to be used on only above ground mining operations or if it fits for older filled in underground mines though. So, its something I wanted to do more research on anyway.

[Adamant36]

So I checked things out. Like 3001 out of 9,504 of them have disused=yes and it seems like most of those are in Germany. Along with a good number of the 827 tagged as historic. Most of the adit's in Germany looked like normal ones. Including those. Except there a few that were tagged on tunnels, but that was only on ways. There were also a couple miss-tagged on quarries, but only as areas, on one island somewhere, and I left a note for someone to fix them. I didn't see any storage facilities tagged as adits. There was a couple of buildings, but they seemed like legitimate mining buildings that probably had the adit inside of them. I think if we just render nodes and use the upside down hammer and pick for disused ones we should be fine.

As far as quarries go. I didn't check as many out as I did the adits, but it seems like with nodes the vast majority of them are normal quarries that just haven't been mapped as areas yet. A few were historical mines in heavily wooded areas, but it's not enough to be an issue. None were miss-tagged adits or mineshafts from what I saw.

[jeisenbe]

Thank you. Have you had a chance to look at the usage of the mineshaft tags (historic= and man_made)? I imagine that these would use the same icon.

[jragusa]

Opacity could be an alternative to display differently disused adits if people are not aware about the upside down icon.

[Adamant36]

True. People might confuse opacity with private access though. From what the wiki said the upside thing is semi well known. Although I don't think that means we go with it though if there's better alternative, because really who knows.

[jeisenbe]

Since many audits are disused and some were never used for mineral extraction, I believe it is ok to use one symbol for all adits: the feature is the mined horizontal tunnel, rather than the active presence of certain mineral extraction activity. Similarly, I would be support rendering disused mine shafts. We also render disused quarries/open surface mines the same as active quarries/mines, so there is precedent.

[Adamant36]

Have you had a chance to look at the usage of the mineshaft tags (historic= and man_made)? I imagine that these would use the same icon.

No I haven't. Well, I did look at a few instances of man_made=mineshaft on areas and it seemed like they were overwhelmingly wrongly tagged on the area of the whole quarry. Which is unfortunate. I didn't do enough research to call it conclusive though. Maybe we could save both for another issue when I have time to look into it more extensively and just deal with adits for now.

I believe it is ok to use one symbol for all adits

That sounds fine. I agree with your points about why it probably doesn't need special rendering for disused ones. Plus, the physical object of the entrance is usually still there either way anyway and that's what is being mapped. Not the status of the mine more generally.

[Adamant36]

@jeisenbe, what do you think the next step on this is?

[jeisenbe]

Try test renderings of man_made=adit and perhaps also historic= and man_made= mineshafts would be helpful.

As suggested above it would also be good to check out how the tag is being used in different places, not just in California or North America but also in some other countries.

[Adamant36]

As suggested above it would also be good to check out how the tag is being used in different places, not just in California or North America but also in some other countries.

When I checked some before it was all in Europe from what I remember.

[ppete2]

Great idea to render man_made=adit. As indicated on the photos of @Adamant36 of 6 Mar 2019, these are sometimes interesing, historical landmark to visit, sometimes also with information plates nearby. So I would welcome rendering these landmarks. Symbols could be those 2 of the Wiki site: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit

[pagaille]

I'm also in favour of displaying those landmarks (adits, cave entrances, ...) on the map. They are parts of our environment exactly like, say, power poles. I believe that some of them were displayed until recently but I may be wrong.

Yes, public mapping organisations do map them. In some places they are part of the landscape : in my region there are small underground mines, adits, quarries, caves, ... everywhere because go the karstic nature of our topography. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karst)

Not displaying them can lead to strange artifacts like paths leading to nowhere (because they lead only to adits or other hidden features like here) : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.31750/4.83101

Regarding the icons that could be displayed JOSM already has them if you're looking for some inspiration.

[daholzfeind]

I agree with @pagaille. I was checking out the notes in some place where a lot of adits are located, none of them is rendered, resulting in a lot of notes, c.f. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3504018

Rendering could be similar to the OpenTopoMap: https://opentopomap.org/#map=17/46.63063/13.65431

[HolgerJeromin]

I agree with @pagaille. I was checking out the notes in some place where a lot of adits are located, none of them is rendered, resulting in a lot of notes, c.f. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3504018

This very note is from streetcomplete which has an own rendering style (aka not osm-carto) with much fewer POIs to show.

[daholzfeind]

@HolgerJeromin I did check it on OSMAnd now. Indeed with osm-carto the adits in the note location are displayed, even though the icon is a bit confusing on the first glance.

Now the remaining question is, if osm.org uses osm-carto, why the adits are not rendered there.

[Erdwinger]

I´d also prefer that there was a rendering for reasons already mentioned above. I suggest using for adit in general, for adits to a mine, and for adits to a disused mine. Using solely might cause confusion, as it is associated with mine in a stricter sense, but there are mines without adits and also adits without mines.

Source: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_Objects/Map_Properties

[HolgerJeromin]

@Erdwinger our icons are 14 px Does your icon works in this small size?

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#map-icon-guidelines

[Erdwinger]

Thanks @HolgerJeromin for the note and the link! (I´m new to OSM...) I will try creating SVGs and also post them for checking. But I guess it should work as there already are icons similarly detailed.