On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> A light rail stop, would that be a railway=tram_stop or a railway=station?
Sounds like a third option is required. Here (Melbourne, Australia)
tram stops vary from just a sign on a telephone pole to "super stops"
(raised platforms, safety
Trams and street-running light rail should have railway=tram_stop. Put
in a sub-tag if you want to distinguish different types.
If your light-rail system runs onto heavy rail (eg famously in
Karlsruhe), and shares stations with heavy rail passenger services,
then use railway=station on the clearly
I just discover in the wiki the natural=tree enhancemens and
especially a (new) concept about tagging translations:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tree
The speciies and genus keys have to be fulfilled in latin and other
tags supply translations:
species=Juglans regia (this is the latin specie
Hi Pieren.
On the one hand I agree with you, that using latin in "species" without
specifying a language code differs from the way it is done with name and
name:* tags.
On the other hand latin AFAIK is the common language to name plant
species all over the world, and - differing from english f
2011/8/18 Peter Wendorff
> Hi Pieren.
>
> On the one hand I agree with you, that using latin in "species" without
> specifying a language code differs from the way it is done with name and
> name:* tags.
> On the other hand latin AFAIK is the common language to name plant species
> all over the w
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Simone Saviolo
wrote:
> +1. It's not a "Latin name", but the scientific name itself.
Okay for latin ... but OSM shouldn't be reserved for experts imo. I'm
afraid that this sub-tag will need a systematic translation to human
readable text in editors which is not t
Pieren wrote:
> species=Juglans regia (this is the latin species name for common walnut)
> species:en=Common Walnut
> species:de=Echte Walnuss
>
> Is that a correct approach for internationalization ? Until now, a tag
> was basically in english (like amenity=school) and if you want to
> display it
On 18/08/11 10:46, Pieren wrote:
I just discover in the wiki the natural=tree enhancemens and
especially a (new) concept about tagging translations:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tree
The speciies and genus keys have to be fulfilled in latin and other
tags supply translations:
species=Jugl
2011/8/18 Pieren
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Simone Saviolo
> wrote:
> > +1. It's not a "Latin name", but the scientific name itself.
>
> Okay for latin ... but OSM shouldn't be reserved for experts imo. I'm
> afraid that this sub-tag will need a systematic translation to human
> readabl
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Simone Saviolo
wrote:
>
> surface=paved is just as precise as species=Juglans regia. It's up to the
> consumers to adapt it to their audience. Also, I'd expect that a Frenchmen
> understands that a certain road is paved without the need to call it
> goudronné.
> Se
2011/8/18 Pieren
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Simone Saviolo
> wrote:
> >
> > surface=paved is just as precise as species=Juglans regia. It's up to the
> > consumers to adapt it to their audience. Also, I'd expect that a
> Frenchmen
> > understands that a certain road is paved without the
So most agree that the Latin name is the correct way of tagging.
Tobias also suggests keeping the species:de/en/... for users that
don't know the latin name or don't have the time to look it up.
This seems to be the only valid reason to still use the
species:en/de... tag, but I believe this would
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Sander Deryckere wrote:
>
> natural="tree"
> species="Quercus lanata"
>
And the natural=tree enters in conflict with the landuse=orchard documentation:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dorchard
Merging both solutions would resutl in something like:
2011/8/18 Pieren :
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Sander Deryckere wrote:
>>
>> natural="tree"
>> species="Quercus lanata"
>>
>
> And the natural=tree enters in conflict with the landuse=orchard
> documentation:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dorchard
>
> Merging both solut
Richard,
Why 'should' they be a tram stop? Is that a convention I don't know about? I
can't derive it from the descriptions in the wiki.
The local situation here in Salt Lake is actually a little more complicated.
TRAX is definitely a light rail system (With Siemens SD-100 and Avanto sets)
but fo
John,
Trams and light rail are two disparate things, in planning and construction,
service, and embedding into the existing infrastructure. Do you mean they
are the same in OpenStreetMap? I think they should not be.
Martijn
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 18 August 2011
Steve,
I think you may have something there. I also believe there is room for a
separate definition for something between a streetside tram halt and a
full-fledged train station as part of a traditional heavy rail system.
Martijn
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Thu,
There's various systems that use railway=tram_stop. You tag what you
like, but there's no guarantee anyone will pick up your data if you
use something different. I don't know if that matters.
Some tram/light_rail systems run exclusively on-street, others use a
bit of track, some are mostly on trac
On 8/18/2011 11:18 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
John,
Trams and light rail are two disparate things, in planning and
construction, service, and embedding into the existing infrastructure.
No they're not. Put light rail vehicles on what had been a tram line and
suddenly it becomes light rail (e
Where I come from[1], light rail is characterized by longer stop intervals
and right of way and dedicated infrastructure as a rule, compared to tram.
If that's not the same for the US, then it may not be a good idea to have
dedicated tagging for it.
Martijn
[1] That's generally a sensible reserva
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's various systems that use railway=tram_stop. You tag what you
> like, but there's no guarantee anyone will pick up your data if you
> use something different. I don't know if that matters.
>
You mea
That's more like it!
Really what's critical here is no so much that it's a charging station,
but rather than the presence of the compatible plug.
And if you flip it around, each fuel type could start gathering other
important attributes:
VDE-AR-E-2623-2-2:plug=yes
VDE-AR-E-2623-2-2:
On 08/17/2011 12:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/17/2011 3:11 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Thus I have sometimes mapped the contraflow as a separate short little
parallel bike path. It keeps the routers happy, even if it is not always
a perfect description of what's on the ground.
Please don't d
On 8/18/2011 1:49 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Where I come from[1], light rail is characterized by longer stop
intervals and right of way and dedicated infrastructure as a rule,
compared to tram. If that's not the same for the US, then it may not be
a good idea to have dedicated tagging for it.
On 8/18/2011 2:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On 08/17/2011 12:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/17/2011 3:11 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Thus I have sometimes mapped the contraflow as a separate short little
parallel bike path. It keeps the routers happy, even if it is not always
a perfect descrip
The many hybrid systems (operating as tramways with shared right of way and
street level stops in inner cities and with dedicated infrastructure and
exclusive right of way - I mentioned some examples in another response)
don't make the situation any clearer. I am inclined to not expand the
tagging
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Often there is (such as a bollard or K-Rail).
> Sometimes it is a double-yellow line.
Fine for bollards or K-Rails But not for double-yellow line. We have a
simple convention as NE2 told you.
>
> Until the routers and mappers fully understa
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Until all routers understand turn restrictions, adding bogus ways for turn
> lanes and removing nodes at intersections gets the job done. But it's not
> how you should be tagging.
When there is a clearly defined standard, "OSM Tagging 1.0
On 8/19/2011 12:01 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Until all routers understand turn restrictions, adding bogus ways for turn
lanes and removing nodes at intersections gets the job done. But it's not
how you should be tagging.
When there is a
29 matches
Mail list logo
