Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

pon, 7. kol 2017. u 21:48 Daniel Koć napisao je: > We could also try to craft internal classification similar to mix used > with roads, for example: > > "big river - "medium river - "small river - > > I agree with this, but we should also correlate these tags with some objective attributes like C

Re: [Tagging] Brasserie

Based on https://www.lemoniteur.be/documentation/horeca-135.html it seems that a brasserie is a café that serves simple food, and hence the manager doesn't need to be a professional cook: _Café_ Vous ne devez pas avoir un accès à la profession Restaurateurs et Traiteurs-organisateurs de banquet

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 10:44, Janko Mihelić pisze: pon, 7. kol 2017. u 21:48 Daniel Koć > napisao je: We could also try to craft internal classification similar to mix used with roads, for example: "big river - "medium river - "small river - I agree with th

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 07.08.2017 o 21:46, Daniel Koć pisze: I don't know which classification would be good for my purposes (low zoom rendering), but currently we have not a single one defined nor used in practice, so I want to start with something. It doesn't need to be perfect, maybe simple length=* tag wo

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 12:07, Daniel Koć pisze: I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to waterways (almost 72% uses): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations Taginfo does not show such combination with rivers (it probably omits anything <1000 uses), but

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:20:31PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 08.08.2017 o 12:07, Daniel Koć pisze: > >I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to waterways > >(almost 72% uses): > > > >https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations > > > >Taginfo does not sho

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 16:01, Richard pisze: I know that you want save some computing power but nothing should be easier to compute than the length so encouraging mappers to add their own estimates doesn't seem like the best idea. The 915 uses possibly have a special purpose? However if there is

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

“official_length" is actually a good example of something that really does not need to be tagged in OSM, and could instead be looked up if the river has a wikidata tag. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3392 for others. Bryan > On Aug 8, 2017, at 10

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 16:24, Bryan Housel pisze: “official_length" is actually a good example of something that really does not need to be tagged in OSM, and could instead be looked up if the river has a wikidata tag. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3392 for others. Of course I wouldn't us