Hi everybody,
As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific
service tags to make them offical. Therefore, I extend the voting period for
the boat_sharing proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing
The idea is to replicate the
Hi there,
Not sure if this is the right place for this philosophical question. But
starting from the comment of Brycenesbitt to my apartment-proposal I feel this
will become yet another piece of unmaintanable data in OSM. and several
comments I got on my boat_sharing proposal just use it,
On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote:
As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific
service tags to make them offical.
Not really - OSM doesn't have official tags. It has commonly used
ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things,
hi there,
sorry for bothering.
I tried to do the post-voting-clean-up on tourism=apartment. I changed the
status for the proposal page to accepted, a created a new tag page [1]
I thought this will then magically appear in the tourism [2] and the map
features [3] page, since both of them seem
I am in the B category for my vision of OSM. I had not voted on these
because they aren't important to me and i will never probably use either
tag but the work you've done is good and I just now voted Yes on both.
While I was reading through the table of possible tourism=*_hut I noticed
that you
Hi -
I'm afraid the answer is neither. OSM is a database for geodata that
is open-licensed, publicly verifiable and not short-term. This means
it's more than just a base-layer. But it also means it's not a
database for all possible geodata. We don't include holiday apartment
reviews/ratings
Personally I don't think it's obvious how to add/edit itens in pages like *Map
Features*.
For example, to edit the Tourism section, you have to go to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:tourism
and *repeat* the information about the tag, such as which objects it can be
Hello,
i put up a proposal for specifying somewhat tighter limits on where to
place the transit between the coastline and the riverbank polygon at
the mouth of a river:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
Currently there are essentially no
I removed the value opposite from the page.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:driving_sideoldid=1008962
2014-03-28 19:27 GMT-03:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
On 27.03.2014 16:11, Pieren wrote:
But you force the QA tools to search and load country relations even
if
On 2014-03-29 13:41, nounours77 wrote :
Hi everybody,
As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for
specific service tags to make them offical. Therefore, I extend the voting
period for the boat_sharing proposal:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 03:44:17PM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
Hello,
i put up a proposal for specifying somewhat tighter limits on where to
place the transit between the coastline and the riverbank polygon at
the mouth of a river:
On 29/03/2014 20:29, Richard Z. wrote:
Currently there are essentially no rules at all on this matter
Nor will there ever be. OSM mappers are free spirits!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Saturday 29 March 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
[...]
* if part of the rationale is to determine whether some city is on
the coast than that would typically be better defined by harbor or
other properties. Any such application will require a more
fine-grained approach anyway. Is there a harbor?
13 matches
Mail list logo
