Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > flow seems relevant information only for boat and navigation, i suppose > boat can't go into this kind of waterway... Actually flow is primarily relevant for, well, flow. Where will the chemicals on your lawn end up when it rains? __

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Matthias Meißer wrote: > Sry I don't understand your point. If you limit a sports shop saying > sports=football it is clear that he spots on football related things > only, right? well that would be four different sports covered immediately in Australia

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > > (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow, > > A stagnant channel is a strange thing, almost imossible. If its really > stagnant it's a natural=water or landuser=eservoir. > Else if it's a waterway it has a flow... Common situation here on

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

If you procedd posting culvert related mails under this general topic nodoby will be able to find them in the future. So please return to the right discussion topic. Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

Sry I don't understand your point. If you limit a sports shop saying sports=football it is clear that he spots on football related things only, right? Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

Nathan Edgars II wrote: > So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but don't know > the direction of flow, You can put a fixme="flow direction is unknown" > (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow, A stagnant channel is a strange thing, almost imossible. If its really stagnan

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

2010/8/31 Matthias Meißer : > But yes for me the diving shop looks a little bit to specific cause the wiki > of shop=sports says you can add details using sport=* in this example > sport=diving. As I posted to the wiki, all the dive shops I've seen in Australia only sell dive related equipment and

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

I'm talking about the things in general. But yes for me the diving shop looks a little bit to specific cause the wiki of shop=sports says you can add details using sport=* in this example sport=diving. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dsports http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

2010/8/31 Matthias Meißer : > This results in the funny situation that I have to do a proposal to > modify/extend a non proposed feature that is in conflict on the list ;) Are you talking about scuba diving centres? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@open

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:10 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > ---Original Email--- > Subject :Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features > From :mailto:nerou...@gmail.com > Date :Mon Aug 30 20:44:53 America/Chicago 2010 > So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but don't know > the d

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

I would expect that case (c) would still have the water flowing downhill. Even if you have a series of pumps, water in the sections between the pumps will still flow downhill, not uphill. About the only time I would expect any counterflow would be if water were to be added to a given section r

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

I don't think that he has said that ALL grass should be marked as a footway, only that this particular strip of grass should be marked as a footway. If enough people walk on that stretch of grass, it will eventually contain a bare-dirt path. I don't see that we would necessarily need to wait u

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On 30/08/2010 21:48, Pieren wrote: And if you go ahead with this article: "When boxes or pipes are placed side-by-side to create a width of greater than twenty feet, the culvert is defined as a bridge in the United States" And if you go on reading it says " This is a requirement of the feder

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Cartinus wrote: > On Monday 30 August 2010 19:19:21 Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> How else would you tag water flow? > > Somewhere, probably lost in the depths of time, it was agreed that waterflow > is modeled by the direction of the waterway way without a oneway tag

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote: > Grass is a legitimate surface for a footway. That doesn't mean that > all grass is part of a footway, any more than all asphalt is part of a > road. This is very cultural. Au city situation The part of the Road Reserve which is between the property boundary o

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/8/30 Anthony : >>> The definition you quoted said: "way or path". In the aerial images >>> posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way. >> >> I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

On Tue, 31 August, 2010 9:18:21 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446&z=22&t=h&nmd=20100614 > > +1. People can walk on almost every grass covered area, but I wouldn't invent >footways just because you can walk there, I would tag them where people >a

Re: [Tagging] Street names

At 2010-08-29 09:03, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mike N. wrote: When tagging a street name and it seems that the street signs are incorrect - all businesses on that street use the alternate spelling as their street address - which name to use?  Using the 'Corre

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

2010/8/30 Anthony : >> The definition you quoted said: "way or path". In the aerial images >> posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way. > > I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why a > strip of grass wouldn't qualify as a "way or path". http://ww

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On 8/30/10 6:49 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: On 31 August 2010 08:36, John F. Eldredge wrote: Also, how do you reverse a way? In JOSM, you just use Reverse way. Don't know about potlatch, but it would have to be there somewhere, or you can't get one way streets to work properly. there's a litt

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On 31 August 2010 08:36, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Does "direction of the original drawing" mean that the nodes should be > marked from upstream to downstream? Yes. Except I usually work the other way, then reverse the way. Or draw a little bit the right way, then add from the other end, which

Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

On 29 August 2010 16:28, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z%C3%BCrich_-_B%C3%BCrkliplatz_IMG_0525_ShiftN.jpg > (or something less fancy) is what I think of a pavilion as. > http://apps.ocfl.net/dept/cesrvcs/parks/parkdetails.asp?parkid=66 > agrees that the park has "rent

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On 08/30/2010 03:35 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > Nathan Edgars II > wrote: > > >>> That's true, but IMHO the "wrong" way is tagged there: the culvert >>> should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is. >>> >> What do you mean by "where it is"? The culvert is the structure that >> carri

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:51 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/8/28 Anthony : >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >>> if there is no footway, it shouldn't be tagged as such. >> >> Agreed.  But what is a footway?  The dictionary says it's "a narrow >> way or path

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Monday 30 August 2010 19:19:21 Nathan Edgars II wrote: > How else would you tag water flow? Somewhere, probably lost in the depths of time, it was agreed that waterflow is modeled by the direction of the waterway way without a oneway tag. Oops it's not lost. It's on the waterway=river and wat

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > > I'm not sure i have understand, but (for me) a culvert can't "carries a > road over" ; a culvert is a kind of tube that goes under a structure to > allow water to go throught a roadrail... > > Wikipedia for example tell : > "A culve

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > That's true, but IMHO the "wrong" way is tagged there: the culvert > > should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is. > What do you mean by "where it is"? The culvert is the structure that > carries the road over the waterway. I'm not sure i have understand, but (for me

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

Some people try to sneak in features to the main feature list (hence violating the community rules that only widely accepted and in-use features should be added), but mostly this will not succeed, especially when they are disputed features, because someone will remove them. I don't see a point in

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

Ok this seem to be a problem but again, is this related in some way with 'Non proposed features'? Matthias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II : >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384 >> If this was tagged culvert=yes rather than bridge=culvert, it wouldn't >> be clear whether it's a bridge or tunnel. > > That's true, but IMHO the "wron

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II : > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> Can you show me the example? I don't understand "structure" and I >> would like to know, which kind of "way" it is (what are the other >> tags?). > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384 > I

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Extracting national boundaries

2010/8/30 Pieren : > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> But France and Slovakia for example don't seem to have a single relation >> as a starting point. >> > > There is the one for France (land_area): > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/11980 just a lateral not

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2010-08-30 17:40 +0200]: > 2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > >> - "these objects express the same thing as that object but in more > >> detail" (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines) > > in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with >

Re: [Tagging] now i'm completely stumped...

2010/8/30 Steve Bennett : > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Richard Welty wrote: >> >> >> Weight Watchers? >> >> Dale Carnegie Training? >> >> Arthur Murray Dance Studio? > > OSM is not setting out to build an ontology of business types. Does that help? why not? OSM is setting out to build an o

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : >> - "these objects express the same thing as that object but in more >> detail" (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines) in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with streets (lanes-tag). I'm not sure on the best syntax though

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

2010/8/30 Steve Bennett : > Yep. Polygon collisions can also be accidental, like when two objects > from slightly different sources (say one gps, one aerial imagery) are > near each other. I'd consider this mapping failure actually. More than believing in gps- and imagery-precision the mapper sho

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Peter Körner wrote: > Hi Kim, > > why exactly do you want to convert a widely used tag (amenity=sauna, ~1000 > uses) to a very rarely used tag (leisure=sauna, ~13 uses). Agreed. Unless there is something very clearly broken with the naming of the tag (power=sub_s

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Can you show me the example? I don't understand "structure" and I > would like to know, which kind of "way" it is (what are the other > tags?). http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384 If this was tagged culvert=yes rather than

Re: [Tagging] now i'm completely stumped...

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > > > Weight Watchers? > > Dale Carnegie Training? > > Arthur Murray Dance Studio? OSM is not setting out to build an ontology of business types. Does that help? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagg

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > i'd lean towards site relations being useful because i think that > the computational complexity of doing lots of polygon intersections > is being underestimated. yes, for small bounding boxes it's ok, > but consider if you needed to do it o

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

On 8/30/10 9:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/29 Pieren: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons overlap. Yes, the topology shows wha

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II : > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> 2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II : >>> culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or >>> underneath? >> >> >> our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like >> that, isn'

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

2010/8/29 Pieren : > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote: >> >> Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application >> that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons >> overlap. >> > > Yes, the topology shows what is "inside" or "outside" th

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

Am 30. August 2010 08:08 schrieb Matthias Meißer : >>  multitude of options to choose from > > > Yes ok but the problem with this options is that the brainstorming process > is so distributed and for every channel you need logon etc. For me for > example I dont like mailinglists that much just caus

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II : >> culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or >> underneath? > > > our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like > that, isn't it? OK, so if you have culvert=yes on

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II : > culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or > underneath? our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like that, isn't it? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II : > Is there a way to distinguish an older gnarly tree suitable for > climbing from a recently-planted tree? I would use height and the circumference of the trunk (usually measured at 1 metre or 1.3 metres above ground) to give an approximation. You can also tag the age

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Sebastian Klein wrote: > Isn't it kind of obvious, that a "photovoltaic" type power generator is > located on top of the building rather than inside or below? > > You may assume a basic level of intelligence from the user of the data and > add only information that