Ulf Lamping schrieb:
> Am 05.02.2010 12:26, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
>> Sam Vekemans wrote:
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image
>> The problem with this proposal is that there isn't a definition which of
>> the several images that likely exist for most objects should be
>> referenced. And I e
Am 06.02.2010 17:38, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> Ulf Lamping schrieb:
>> Am 05.02.2010 12:26, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
>>> Sam Vekemans wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image
>>> The problem with this proposal is that there isn't a definition which of
>>> the several images that likely exist
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> There are conceptual differences between WP and OSM, but the underlying
> problem stays the same. Choose one "prominent" photo representing the
> object. WP can do it, so I don't see a good reason why we can't.
Of course we can. I'm just trying to explain that this problem i
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
> ... Yes, there can only be one photo to represent
> the OSM object.
Why? You could just as easily use image=;;..., though this
clearly doesn't scale well (which may suggest that this isn't a good
approach...)
I think what Tobias is getting a
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Wikipedia is clearly different from OSM in that there is exactly one
> relevant way of viewing a Wikipedia entry: Visiting the page on
> wikipedia.org. Everything else is an afterthought, used by a small
> minority of Wikipedia visitors.
You'r
