[Talk-GB] User dataone: "splitting into 2 way to tag restriction "

[Dave F.]

Hi

A new editor has started splitting roads in my locale, but from what I 
can see making no tagging amendments. Am I missing something? If not I'd 
like to halt him before there's too much damage.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dataOne/history#map=11/51.2981/-1.9753

I've sent a message asking for clarification.

Cheers
Dave F.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Talk-GB] User dataone: "splitting into 2 way to tag restriction "

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri Oct 2 14:47:05 2015 GMT+0100, Dave F. wrote:
> Hi
> 
> A new editor has started splitting roads in my locale, but from what I 
> can see making no tagging amendments. Am I missing something? If not I'd 
> like to halt him before there's too much damage.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dataOne/history#map=11/51.2981/-1.9753
> 
> I've sent a message asking for clarification.
> 
I can see nothing othet than the splits, don't think you have missed anything. 

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] User dataone: "splitting into 2 way to tag restriction "

[David Woolley]

On 02/10/15 20:26, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Fri Oct 2 14:47:05 2015 GMT+0100, Dave F. wrote:


A new editor has started splitting roads in my locale, but from what I
can see making no tagging amendments. Am I missing something? If not I'd
like to halt him before there's too much damage.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dataOne/history#map=11/51.2981/-1.9753

I've sent a message asking for clarification.


I can see nothing othet than the splits, don't think you have missed anything.



Even if this is a botched attempt at legitimate changes, the scale of 
the process makes it look like an un-sourced bulk import, possibly from 
an ineligible source.



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

[Talk-GB] Best practice to add stabilisation types to shores and banks

[tshrub]

main object is, to mark ways with the type of shoreline stabilisations, 
such as „boulder-packs“ or sheet piling: 



tag-combination:
- barrier=wall
- material=stone (metal, wood, plastic)
- wall=boulder (fascine, breakwater, groyne, sheet_piling, wattle_work, 
tetrapod_blocks)


technical issue:
does problems cause by fragmenting the ways a little more into sections 
to give them the stabilisation feature?

# single ways waterway=stream, waterway=river und
# areas waterway=riverbank, natural=water
(I don't think so)

may be introducing a new value from the beginning like 
barrier=stabilisation + stabilisation=boulder
because wall is actually for „freestanding structures“, but „barrier“ 
might fit: restrict or prevent against the elements ... Or (what I 
think) later, if wished, afterwards?


Double values like „sheet_piling; boulder“ are depreciated? Sometimes, 
on bottom they set a sheet piling and on top you see a boulder ballasting.


For single waterways with *unequal* stabilisations:
- wall:left=boulder
- wall:right=fascine
Or
- boulder=left
- fascine=right
in this case, is it possible to set
- wall=boulder; fascine
(I would prefer first)

Are my choosen value-terms common in the english language area?
I'm not sure for this „boulder“ ballasting (see photo-link above).

The „stabilisation-tags“ are interesting from skipper, tourists up to 
landscape history.

In middle-europe, stabilisations are all-round.


best,
t.


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

[Talk-GB] weekly 271

[Manfred A. Reiter]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 271, is now available online in
English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the
openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by
...

-- 
## Manfred
## www.weeklyOSM.eu
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Dual Aperture Postboxes

[SK53]

I noted today a number of post boxes with two apertures, one for stamped
mail, the other for franked mail. Each side of the box has a separate plate
& distinct refs.I would have expected these to have been mapped as
"ref=RF1 1;RF1 2", with some explanatory text to explain that this is one &
the same post-box.

I find that one such has been mapped as two nodes placed directly on top of
each other:

   - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1149760519
   - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1149765602

This is not wholly unreasonable, there are functionally two different
posting places located in a single post box. It also shows that the OSM tag
name which is perfectly accurate about 99.99% of the time, isn't totally
precise.

(Complete aside: This is the sort of PITA I was always experiencing in
db-design; and equally business folk always will tell you the equivalent of
"all post from one post box is treated the same". In the extreme form you
get US software firms writing banking systems which don't acknowledge that
more than one currency exists).

Anyway I look to Robert to cut this Gordian Knot one way or the other.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] weekly 271

[Richard Fairhurst]

Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
> The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 271

Weekly OSM is brilliant. Thank you.

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/weekly-271-tp5856069p5856075.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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