"If you can only chose between potable and non-potable" - in this case
tagging scheme is bad and should be changed to default to unknown value.
2014-11-12 23:44 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Kotya Karapetyan
wrote:
>> amenity=nonpotable_water
>> with a hose size specified (e.g. MHT or GHT for the United States,
BSP
>> elsewhere)
>>
>> drinking_water=yes/no
>> an attribute on something else, such as a campsite, cabin or toilet
>
> OK, so where d
> First, water quality standards have been tightened over the years so some
> natural sources of water, which are as good or bad as they've ever been, now
> fall below revised quality standards. My personal view is those particular
> sources are still safe for me but liability would keep me fro
As a as seasonal volunteer with the US Forest Service I have a little more
nuanced view: In the area I help out at there two big things on the long list
of causes for the FS to stop showing water as potable.
First, water quality standards have been tightened over the years so some
natural sourc
If we are to split landuse=civic into civic_services and civic_admin, Then I
would like some feedback on the categories things fall into.
On the discussion page, I listed out some building types that would fall into
either one, and I would like opinions on removals or additions to the lists.
in the late 1980’s, they put non-potable signs on many springs in national
parks because of the uncertainty of bacteria in the water (from horse poop),
though people had been drinking from them since the parks creation (and
earlier).
There are places where access to water via spring or other u
On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:06:15 +0100
From: Pieren
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UT
On 12.11.2014 10:34, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:22 PM, johnw wrote:
>> 2014-11-11 12:53 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr :
>
>>> Therefore, would prefer a generic tag that can be added to any feature,
>>> e.g. location=rooftop.
>
> -1
> 'location' is already a bad keyword in OSM. Like "typ
Well, if I was mapping a parking lot on a complex building, I assume that the
building would have muliple parking lots connectedby ramps, bridges, or similar
separations between the lots themselves.
I asume that a building with muliple levels is either going to be mapped as a
group of disparat
What about more complex buildings with multiple roofs?
2014-11-12 12:27 GMT+01:00 johnw :
>
>
> level=roof sounds fine to me. Roof always gets special treatment (it’s
> usually never a floor number)
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Pieren wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:22 PM, john
level=roof sounds fine to me. Roof always gets special treatment (it’s usually
never a floor number)
> On Nov 12, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Pieren wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:22 PM, johnw wrote:
>> 2014-11-11 12:53 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr :
>
>>> Therefore, would prefer a generic tag that
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:22 PM, johnw wrote:
> 2014-11-11 12:53 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr :
>> Therefore, would prefer a generic tag that can be added to any feature,
>> e.g. location=rooftop.
-1
'location' is already a bad keyword in OSM. Like "type", it is too
generic and could be used for ever
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> No, unknown should be tagged as unknown. Even better - not tagged.
+1
We don't tag what is unknown.
Pierre
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/l
13 matches
Mail list logo
