Good point Martin
For this issue it is irrelevant what the real life identity is of this
user. I'll not mention any of this in the e-mail to the DWG. (Not that I
know that much about this mapper)
Cheers
Peter
2014-11-13 17:56 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> 2014-11-08 18:55 GMT+01:00 Michae
A couple more landuse cases were added. I’m going to ask now if it is a good
idea to specifically exclude Police/fire/safety and give them their own
landuse(s).
Safety could cover the lifeguard/ski patrol/ranger buildings that are public or
privately operated for the purposes of interacting wi
2014-11-13 18:32 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert :
> I agree you. The location of ulamm is already public. Have a look at his
> changesets and all the wiki pages he edited and where he argues with
> other users. You will find out that he has local knowledge in B.
>
yes, it can be guessed with high pr
Hi Martin,
Am 2014-11-13 um 17:56 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> I'd kindly ask you to not point to actual or presumed real life identities
> of OSM contributors and to not disclose their (presumed/actual) place of
> residence on public lists, unless they are publicly known or the mapper has
> aut
2014-11-08 18:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert :
> My guess after reading the first sentence of your mail was right. There
> is no need to hide the name of this user. Its name is ulamm (name) from B.
> ...
>
I'd kindly ask you to not point to actual or presumed real life identities
of OSM contribut
Thanks all. We'll contact the DWG and see what they can do.
Cheers
PeeWee32
2014-11-11 23:37 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Zenker :
> Hi,
>
> * Pee Wee [14 19:20]:
> > I thought I just wait some days for other to reply but unfortunately no
> > more then yours. The question we still have is : What can
If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has
a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the
water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign
saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an emergency.
If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has
a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the
water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign
saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an emergency.
2014-11-11 15:26 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin :
> > no, you won't have any overlapping ways any more, just one way, and all
> > overlapping geometries can become multipolygon relations with
> > appropriate layer tags (etc.)
>
> Ah.
> One untagged way and two MP-relations with the building and parking
2014-11-11 15:26 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin :
> > Therefore, would prefer a generic tag that can be added to any
> feature,
> > e.g. location=rooftop.
> > what about the "surface" value, isn't rooftop (only) parking covered by
> > parking=surface? I am not completely sure languagewise, and t
2014-11-13 6:50 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
> Let's start with the cases:
>
> * Designated potable, as in from a city tap.
> * Designated non-potable, as in from a farm ditch, or purple pipe (USA).
> This would include designated irrigation water of most sorts.
> * Potable but with a known defect su
2014-11-13 10:02 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability
> implications of amenity=drinking_water.
FWIW, here in Italy we have a lot of public drinking water fountains (in
Rome alone there are at least several hundred if not thousands
2014-11-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch :
> A reason for the non-potable would be nice too. I can filter and disinfect
> water with a field kit but I can't remove toxic minerals and this is
> important to know when traveling in the area.
while this is true, I'm not sure if I would rely in this cas
I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability
implications of amenity=drinking_water.
2014-11-13 9:39 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan :
> Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
> information he doesn't possess. "This water is non-potable" is very
Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
information he doesn't possess. "This water is non-potable" is very
different from "I am not sure you can drink it". This is why I tend to go
for a generic "water source" tag with an additional potability
specification.
Taking
15 matches
Mail list logo
