Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

[Paul Sladen]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Pmailkeey . wrote:
> Still makes use of 2 fields but keeps the main field 'tidy'.

You can use whatever field name you want for non-standard usage, as
long as it doesn't interfere with prior art---but you will likely find
chosing something unique is not very useful.

(...As nearly demonstrated by the question that kicked this thread off
39 hours again about why a particular non-standard combination of tags
was not being found by existing search mechanisms).

-Paul





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

[Pmailkeey .]

On 19 March 2015 at 16:31, Ian Caldwell 
wrote:

>
> On 19 March 2015 at 15:54, Pmailkeey .  wrote:
>
>> If map renderers don't want to use C and U numbered roads, that is up to
>> them to ignore and not for mappers to place in a different field in the
>> database.
>>
>
> But that means that renderers would have to analyse the strings and that
> analysis will be country and possible region dependant. Much better to
> store in a simple way in the database if the road numbers are "normally
> used". That information can be put in by the mapper rather than being
> guessed by the renderer. This will allow for local variation.  So if one
> council does use C numbers on a road sign  that can be recorded.
>
>
>
> Ian
>

If it is decided for the database to be able to record this aspect of road
numbering, the numbers should stay in the one field and a second field
should be used to indicate whether the numbers are used or not on signs.
Still makes use of 2 fields but keeps the main field 'tidy'.

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

[Ian Caldwell]

On 19 March 2015 at 15:54, Pmailkeey .  wrote:

> If map renderers don't want to use C and U numbered roads, that is up to
> them to ignore and not for mappers to place in a different field in the
> database.
>

But that means that renderers would have to analyse the strings and that
analysis will be country and possible region dependant. Much better to
store in a simple way in the database if the road numbers are "normally
used". That information can be put in by the mapper rather than being
guessed by the renderer. This will allow for local variation.  So if one
council does use C numbers on a road sign  that can be recorded.



Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

[Pmailkeey .]

Hi Dan,

On 19 March 2015 at 08:15, Dan S  wrote:

> 2015-03-19 1:54 GMT+00:00 Pmailkeey . :
> >
> > On 18 March 2015 at 17:54, Ed Loach  wrote:
> >>
> >> A wiki search for admin_ref finds
> >>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Road_Numbers
> >>
> >>
> >
> > There's a right way to tag road numbers and a wrong way. The above is the
> > wrong way.
>
> Thanks but this is a bit unhelpful - could you explain what you mean
> please?
>
> Dan
>
>
All 'tagging' is doing is effectively naming the database field in which
the attribute is being placed. Road numbers all belong in the road number
field irrespective of what the number is. If map renderers don't want to
use C and U numbered roads, that is up to them to ignore and not for
mappers to place in a different field in the database.

Doesn't that seem a more logical approach to the issue ?


-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

[Dan S]

2015-03-19 1:54 GMT+00:00 Pmailkeey . :
>
> On 18 March 2015 at 17:54, Ed Loach  wrote:
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Can you point us to some further reading about this "admin_ref"
>>
>> > tag?
>>
>> > The wiki isn't telling me about it. If there is indeed a consensus
>>
>> > then it'd be nice for it to be documented!
>>
>>
>>
>> A wiki search for admin_ref finds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Road_Numbers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> There's a right way to tag road numbers and a wrong way. The above is the
> wrong way.

Thanks but this is a bit unhelpful - could you explain what you mean please?

Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

[Pmailkeey .]

On 18 March 2015 at 17:54, Ed Loach  wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
>
>
> > Can you point us to some further reading about this "admin_ref"
>
> > tag?
>
> > The wiki isn't telling me about it. If there is indeed a consensus
>
> > then it'd be nice for it to be documented!
>
>
>
> A wiki search for admin_ref finds
>
>
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Road_Numbers
>
>
>
>
>
There's a right way to tag road numbers and a wrong way. The above is the
wrong way.

There's also a right way and a wrong way to set e-mail Reply-to: field -
and this is the wrong way.


-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb