Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
A bug... there is few maps (even commercial) that render the flow
direction. I dont see this issue as a bug but perhaps a missing feature
or a request feature.
It's a bug given the current tagging standard. All the eyeballs in the
world
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote:
so flow_direction ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the enough
eyeballs principle for finding major errors.
On 31.08.2010 20:58, David Earl wrote:
Just to throw something else into this discussion...
highway=steps
It doesn't (or at least, isn't documented as) have direction, but
_could_ have in the same way as rivers (direction of way is down the
steps, say).
To quote the wiki:
On 01.09.2010 08:32, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorangepdora...@mac.com wrote:
so flow_direction ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the enough
eyeballs
Hi.
Could be invented by non-English speakers. In German it's
Beachvolleyball as one word - other languages could be similar, don't know.
regards
Peter
On 01.09.2010 07:18, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I'm wondering if there's a reason this is beachvolleyball rather than
beach_volleyball. Most
On 01/09/2010 04:09, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means
something *without* another tag being added.
natural=cliff, barrier=retaining wall
Hi all friends of good tagging,
The proposal is opened for one week now and I plan to put it to voting
phase at Tu, 7.9.2010. If you have any comments or ideas or think that
the proposal needs to be changed significantly, I'd like you to speak up
during the next week.
Peter
Am 24.08.2010
Am 01.09.2010 08:32, Nathan Edgars II:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorangepdora...@mac.com wrote:
so flow_direction ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the enough
eyeballs principle for
Hello list,
while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
(Karlsruhe schema)
I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a
relation more error-proof than
2010/9/1 David Paleino da...@debian.org:
Hello list,
while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
(Karlsruhe schema)
I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Claudius Henrichs claudiu...@gmx.de wrote:
Did you check the Water view in the OSM inspector? It visualizes the
direction already: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/
Only in Europe...
___
Tagging mailing list
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
2010/9/1 David Paleino da...@debian.org:
In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various
segments + links). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a
house role to include housenumbers there?
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
2010/9/1 David Paleino da...@debian.org:
In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various
segments + links). That's Relation:route, with
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, David Paleino
da...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
2010/9/1 David Paleino da...@debian.org:
In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street
2010/9/1 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
Not much to group the segments of a street, but to associate the house
numbers to their street. Grouping the segments is a welcome
side-effect.
Ciao,
Simone
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
I'm using that because I consider Foo Avenue as a logical unit, a
route, even if the way is split
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
However, I'm using that because I consider Foo Avenue as a logical unit, a
route, even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
classifications, different tags, whatever).
See, for example:
On 9/1/10, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I know what you're grouping. It's the why that I'm unsure about.
Where's the benefit in this relation?
it would be useful to manage common data (e.g. the name) in the
relation instead of having to update it in every part of the road
I'm
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
Hello list,
while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
(Karlsruhe schema)
I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the
Sorry forgot to cc: tagging list
I'm working on a Master Tagging System spreadsheet, which will be
available in the next few weeks. (depending on my time-schedual)
It's great to see this top-usage, and i can cross-reference it with
Steve's chart
In data mercoledì 01 settembre 2010 12:08:42, David Paleino ha scritto:
Ok, after some more discussion on #osm...@oftc , we kind-of-agreed that
route=road isn't suitable for all cases, and there are places in the world
where it's not suitable at all (because not all streets with the same name
ironic
Is the place where the Mapnik server is housed craft=tiler in future?
/ironic
+1 for the proposal from me.
Peter Wendorff
On 01.09.2010 09:37, Peter Körner wrote:
Hi all friends of good tagging,
The proposal is opened for one week now and I plan to put it to voting
phase at Tu,
On 01/09/2010 12:08, David Paleino wrote:
So we settled that Relation:street, as proposed in [0], would be more suitable,
both for grouping segments together (yes Simone and Nathan, just for the sake
of it, because I think it's convenient to keep them logically together with a
relation), _AND_
Realy great, will help to cool down some discussions and very useful for
developers to see what is important/supported.
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
- Original Message -
From: Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Vincent Pottier
2010/9/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Couldn't incline=up/incline=down work for waterways too?
Then incline=down could be default, and incline=unknown could be added
where the incline is unknown.
This is not always true, think about culverts:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:D%C3%BCker.jpg
2010/9/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
honestly, I can't figure out what that is or how it applies.
I don't know how you call this in English (but probably it is called
culvert), this is a closed tube for water which goes down on one side
of the obstacle (e.g. road), the horizontally under it and up
2010/9/1 Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com:
On 9/1/10, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I know what you're grouping. It's the why that I'm unsure about.
Where's the benefit in this relation?
it would be useful to manage common data (e.g. the name) in the
relation
2010/9/1 David Paleino da...@debian.org:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But why does this logical unit need to be grouped in a relation? I
don't see any benefit to it.
The benefit is intrinsic in data organization.
+1, e.g. it allows you to download and select
Why shouldn't it? Probably depends on the situation, but if the occur
on an object that we generally tag with waterway, it should be clear.
This technique was already used in ancient Rome for special parts of
aqueducts (where they had to bypass an obstacle). Aren't they a kind
of culvert?
2010/9/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a waterway, would it?
Why shouldn't it?
Because it's not navigable, therefore it's not a waterway. And
because the wiki says to
On 09/01/2010 02:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/9/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
http://dict.leo.org/?lp=endesearch=d%C3%BCker
OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_siphon
Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a
On 01/09/2010 20:24, Anthony wrote:
All the
examples of waterways on that wiki page are open.
Well; normally open -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.327lon=-1.74192zoom=14 is an
example of a bit of canal that isn't
In any case, as I said, there's no reason the default has to be the
If a body of water that is not navigable is not a waterway, does this mean that
any river that contains a waterfall is not a waterway? What about a stream or
river that has portions that are too shallow to be navigable, or where the
current is too rapid? What if it is navigable for only part
2010/9/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
examples of waterways on that wiki page are open. A culvert is more
like man_made=pipeline, type=drain.
yes, but if it is part of a waterway, it would for consistencies sake
IMHO be better to keep it there. Above there was an example given
about a river that
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 01/09/2010 20:24, Anthony wrote:
All the
examples of waterways on that wiki page are open.
Well; normally open -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.327lon=-1.74192zoom=14 is an example
of a bit of canal
On 01/09/2010 20:53, Anthony wrote:
Can you pardon my laziness and tell me whether or not the water in
that part of the canal fills the entire tunnel.
It doesn't - there's a narrow footpath to the side (presumably where
boats were pulled along manually - the horses had to take the path over
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:09 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 01/09/2010 20:53, Anthony wrote:
Can you pardon my laziness and tell me whether or not the water in
that part of the canal fills the entire tunnel.
It doesn't - there's a narrow footpath to the side
My guess would be that barrier=ditch would be for a ditch that is dry the
majority of the time, and waterway=ditch would be for a ditch that is flooded
most of the time.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
From :mailto:o...@inbox.org
Date :Wed Sep 01
On 01/09/2010 21:42, Anthony wrote:
(While looking at this I also noticed we have barrier=ditch and
waterway=ditch. That also sucks, unless there's some distinction
between the two.
Presumably that's different wiki editors arriving at the same feature
from different angles? I'd say there
40 matches
Mail list logo
