On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you check tagwatch for the most common reference to source:*location* ?
Some from Tagwatch Australia:
60 source:location
46 source:geometry
7 source:existance
3 source:area
Some others from OSMdoc (in descending
Hello,
== Proposal ==
It is important to define narrow for highways residential,
unclassified and living_street. Tag {{tag|width|narrow}} is not yet
defined at [[Key:width]]. The alternatives are =3.5m, =3m, =2.5m and
=2m. It is also important to know the width limit for when narrow
rendering
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
Just estimate the width, width:est=*
Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at
least it puts a number to it
Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have
to
On 19 February 2010 01:54, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have
How is the argument given less relevent than last time?
to admit that many contributors find easier to say that a residential street
is narrower than the
At 2010-02-17 21:12, Roy Wallace wrote:
I'm a big fan of source:*=*. This allows for a road to be tagged with
e.g. source:name=survey + source:surface=nearmap
But there doesn't seem to be any way to specify the source of a
feature's *location*.
I've been using semi-colon-separated values like
Hello,
Since the voting is a bit half-way I request your attention to get it
finalized:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cycleway_condition
Br, Kim S
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, John Smith wrote:
If I form an opinion stating 2m is narrow and someone forms an opinion
stating 4m is narrow how is that helpful in the least?
Narrow on foot or narrow in a truck imply different widths.
So I'm in favour of estimating a width for this purpose, and not
On Thursday 18 February 2010 12:18:45 Roy Wallace wrote:
1) Use source:X to refer to geolocation, where X is some string
that is never going to be used as a key on its own, or
2) Redefine source=* to refer to the geolocation of the feature only
(as opposed to all tags of the feature)
3) Nuke
On Friday 19 February 2010 00:36:45 John Smith wrote:
when you can just tag the object based on the
sources used to create or modify it.
This is all nice and fine for the short term in those areas where you are
filling in a blank map. But over time more and more people will be editing
Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Just estimate the width, width:est=*
Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at
least it puts a number to it
Don't give again
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
I have no opposition, though, to the more precise:
source:location=survey;usgs_imagery + source:name=survey;image;LACA
source:location=* sounds good, as long as there is never going to be a
location=* key
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
3) Nuke alle source tags on database objects, because they are not data but
metadata. Then put decent descriptive comments/tags on your changesets.
This doesn't solve the problem (please start a new thread if you want
to talk
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should
never hve picked up a GPS in the first place.
Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please
confirm width
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should
never hve picked up a GPS in the first place.
Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please
On 19 February 2010 10:19, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please
confirm width
Which is what was being suggested in the proposal on the wiki:
Lets say we define narrow as approximately =3m. Then a way with width=2.5
will
15 matches
Mail list logo
