On 29 July 2010 16:27, Simon Biber wrote:
> It seems the emergency phones used to render on Mapnik but now they don't.
> Should we re-open the original trac ticket (link below) or submit a new one to
> get the new tagging rendered?
Do you know if there was a particular reason why they stopped bei
From: John Smith
> Did I miss anything currently being mentioned in this or the fire hydrant
>thread?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Emergency
I note you've changed ambulance stations and emergency phones to use the
emergency key. Cool.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse
On 29 July 2010 15:46, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Wiki voting can be a means to document that the discussion actually
> generated consensus. After a successful discussion, it's merely a
> formality, but it demonstrates the consensus to those who haven't
> participated in the discussions preceding it.
John Smith wrote:
> On 29 July 2010 15:13, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> 5-10k mappers doesn't work, but skipping discussion and inventing tags
>
> Don't confuse discussion with voting, voting is flawed and many things
> are still discussed on the tagging list before being documented on the
> wiki.
Wik
On 29 July 2010 15:13, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 5-10k mappers doesn't work, but skipping discussion and inventing tags
Don't confuse discussion with voting, voting is flawed and many things
are still discussed on the tagging list before being documented on the
wiki.
> based on the experiences of a
John Smith wrote:
> The current process is/was flawed completely, as someone else pointed
> out, how much weight can you put in a process that only very few
> people have anything to do with when there is 5-10k active editors?
Low participation doesn't make the process flawed, as it isn't supposed
On 29 July 2010 09:49, Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM, David Earl
> wrote:
>>
>> There is no process.
>>
>
> That's simply not true and you know it. It's a big difference between "there
> is no process" and "I don't want to follow a process".
The current process is/was flawed co
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:23 PM, David Earl wrote:
> There is no process.
>
>
That's simply not true and you know it. It's a big difference between "there
is no process" and "I don't want to follow a process".
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@ope
At 2010-07-28 01:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
>
> There are also fire hoses which are attached to building water supplies and
> fan-folded inside largish glass-front metal cases inset into walls.
> emergency=fire_hose maybe, though I'd like somet
2010/7/28 Simone Saviolo :
> The relation's scope goes beyond parallel dual-carriage ways.
+1, and I don't see why we shouldn't have it. They will be less
complicated for following mappers than routes are for instance.
> Suppose
> there's a parking on top of the bridge, or any other type of build
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:16 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> electrified=yes). I'm sure soon enough we'll have a major collision,
>> so to speak...
>
> you mean like power=station/generator etc?
No. From a technical standpoint, there's actually not a problem there,
it's technically a massive scale user
On 29 July 2010 01:19, Mike N. wrote:
> - Should I just put a redirect to office= on the proposal pages?
Up to you, alternatively you can just copy and paste bits of
content/text that would be useful...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or
On 28/07/2010 16:19, Mike N. wrote:
I've never understood the process either.
There is no process. Anyone can use whatever tags they like, and choose
to document them or not as they wish.
Some people like to think that there is a voting procedure, but that has
no formal status and so few pe
I'm confused because I was thinking that tags on Map_Features page
were all approved tags..
Sometimes even approved tags are not useful. I tagged a large number of
approved contact:phone= , but found that OSM map data consumers I looked at
all used the *disapproved* tag phone=. Tagwatch
On 29 July 2010 01:14, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Yeah, that's the bit I found odd. I guess there are other examples of
> a tag meaning two different things depending on what the "main" tag is
> (eg, voltage=* can go with power=line, or railway=rail,
> electrified=yes). I'm sure soon enough we'll have
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Actually it's railway=rail service=*.
Yeah, that's the bit I found odd. I guess there are other examples of
a tag meaning two different things depending on what the "main" tag is
(eg, voltage=* can go with power=line, or railway=rail,
ele
On 28/07/2010 15:09, S.Higashi wrote:
I'm confused because I was thinking that tags on Map_Features page
were all approved tags..
There is no such thing as an "approved" tag.
David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.open
I'm confused because I was thinking that tags on Map_Features page
were all approved tags..
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 28 July 2010 23:57, S.Higashi wrote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Emergency
>
> Are these tags approved?
Check out some of the comments on the minor tag proposals lately when
it comes to voting, most just suggest you use it if it seems sensible
and doesn't conflict or cau
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Emergency
Are these tags approved?
Also i was surprised to see office tags.
I haven't ever seen these tags.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Office
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openst
On 28 July 2010 23:45, Richard Welty wrote:
> the fire hydrant language is overly specific; out here in the
C&P from wikipedia... and there is always the little edit button/links
to help improve it :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On 7/28/10 8:45 AM, John Smith wrote:
Did I miss anything currently being mentioned in this or the fire
hydrant thread?
the fire hydrant language is overly specific; out here in the
sticks, we have what are called dry hydrants adjacent
to ponds (there's a photo of an example associated with
the
Did I miss anything currently being mentioned in this or the fire
hydrant thread?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Emergency
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am 28.07.2010 13:02, schrieb John F. Eldredge:
> I agree that tagging such things as emergency would make more sense than
> tagging them as amenity.
>
> ---Original Email---
> Subject :Re: [Tagging] emergency=*
> From :mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com
> Date :Wed Jul 28 02:09:41 America/Chicag
I agree that tagging such things as emergency would make more sense than
tagging them as amenity.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] emergency=*
>From :mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com
Date :Wed Jul 28 02:09:41 America/Chicago 2010
> The right long term solution for this stuff is to
2010/7/28 Richard Mann :
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:27 AM, James Livingston
> wrote:
>> Someone mentioned
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels
>> up-thread, is there anything it doesn't cover? I've been using it for over a
>> year, although I haven't ma
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:27 AM, James Livingston
wrote:
> Someone mentioned
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels
> up-thread, is there anything it doesn't cover? I've been using it for over a
> year, although I haven't mapped any really crazy scenarios.
On 28/07/2010, at 1:13 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I think that there is definitely space for a bridge-relation to deal with all
> these informations and bring them together. An alternative might be to
> draw an (additional) polygon for the bridge area in projection (with
> common nodes on the
2010/7/28 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Alan Mintz
> wrote:
>> At 2010-07-27 23:25, Colin Smale wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there might be more types of "public fire control equipment"... I
>>> remember often seeing fire beaters (broomstick with flaps of rubber/leather)
>>> in
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
> At 2010-07-27 23:25, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> I think there might be more types of "public fire control equipment"... I
>> remember often seeing fire beaters (broomstick with flaps of rubber/leather)
>> in a rack on moor and heathland prone to
On 28 July 2010 17:50, Alan Mintz wrote:
> There are also fire hoses which are attached to building water supplies and
> fan-folded inside largish glass-front metal cases inset into walls.
> emergency=fire_hose maybe, though I'd like something that better indicates
> that it is attached to a water
At 2010-07-27 23:25, Colin Smale wrote:
I think there might be more types of "public fire control equipment"...
I remember often seeing fire beaters (broomstick with flaps of
rubber/leather) in a rack on moor and heathland prone to fires. Maybe
amenity=fire_beater can be added to the proposal?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 28 July 2010 17:25, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> For some reason it completely escaped me that service=* is supposed to
>> be used for both railways (eg, service=spur) and roads
>> (service=alley). I don't really want to debate this situation wit
On 28 July 2010 17:25, Steve Bennett wrote:
> For some reason it completely escaped me that service=* is supposed to
> be used for both railways (eg, service=spur) and roads
> (service=alley). I don't really want to debate this situation with a
> view to changing it, but could someone give me a qu
On 28 July 2010 17:09, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>> The right long term solution for this stuff is to use country-specific
>> tags, (eg, in australia we could use amenity=ses_station or
>> something), and to centrally define (in machine-readable terms) what
>> those country-specific tags are. But I thin
For some reason it completely escaped me that service=* is supposed to
be used for both railways (eg, service=spur) and roads
(service=alley). I don't really want to debate this situation with a
view to changing it, but could someone give me a quick explanation on
how this arose? It seems a little
> The right long term solution for this stuff is to use country-specific
> tags, (eg, in australia we could use amenity=ses_station or
> something), and to centrally define (in machine-readable terms) what
> those country-specific tags are. But I think we're a fair way from
> being able to implemen
37 matches
Mail list logo
