Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 17 October 2017 at 14:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > --- > Slightly off topic - youtube video > Landing at Ononge Papua New Guinea. Note the approach over the village, > clearly showing; > why there are no 'residential' roads and why there are so many showing up

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

These 'airstrips' are popular in Australia and Papua New Guinea too. To me they are runways - they are there for planes to land and take off, any 'services' might also be tagged. It seams in New Zealand that these were originally tagged as aerodromes but they were changed to airstrip to stop

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 10-Oct-17 02:24 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: I'm in favor of airstrips, but I would make airstrip a subcategory of runway. So tagging an airstrip as runway is not wrong if you don't know any better. Anyway, is there a way to know if a runway is an airstrip from aerial photos? Is grass surface

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant Extensions)

On 17-Oct-17 10:00 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: Martin wrote: "You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever you want. Just removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones isn't. *)" +1 +1 - Indeed it is best to map a few of the new things so as to see how it goes for you. The

Re: [Tagging] Oil fields - how to tag?

> landuse=industrial is simply > factually wrong because most of the land is not actually used for > industrial purposes. I also agree. But how best to tag such areas then? In terms of "mapping ownership", I don't think that bears on this conversation any more than it does when tagging an area

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Yes I can hear the 'tagging for the render' cry from here already. However > this looks to be usefull information that mappers want to tag. > So give them a way of doing it and let the mappers and renders chose to use > it or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant Extensions)

Martin wrote: "You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever you want. Just removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones isn't. *)" +1 The entire voting process is non-binding. It's a referendum of the opinions of the few people who read this list, take the trouble to analyze a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

My present though is that this is trying to convey at what zoom levels these features should appear. These 'importance' tags are starting to appear for all different kinds of things - aerodromes being one. So why not introduce a property tag (like width, height, capacity, pressure) such as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant Extensions)

Hi Alberto, Am 16.10.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Viking: > Voting ended with 21 "no" and 28 "yes", and at least one that would change > "no" to "yes" if we redefine gallons. > Now we have to do decide what to do. Is this enough to delcare it approved? A quote from the wiki (page

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant Extensions)

Voting ended with 21 "no" and 28 "yes", and at least one that would change "no" to "yes" if we redefine gallons. Now we have to do decide what to do. Is this enough to delcare it approved? Anyway some issues can be easily solved: fire_hydrant:class=* can become fire_hydrant:awwa_class=* gpm can

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

What I try to say is that the original proposal tagged rivers according to their relative importance in a country. What's the criterium to know if a river is "major" inside a country? Is it its occurrence in the school curriculum? Iregua, which is a very small river (5 m width on its end) was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

On Monday 16 October 2017, José G Moya Y. wrote: > Ilya, > As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking > about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country, > Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about > absolute size (compared with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

Ilya, As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country, Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about absolute size (compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are small rivers. On the

Re: [Tagging] Oil fields - how to tag?

On Monday 16 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I think we don't map individual land ownership or land use rights > because of privacy concerns [...] No, we don't map land ownership because it is usually not verifiable which is partly due to privacy concerns from side of the cadastral

Re: [Tagging] Oil fields - how to tag?

2017-10-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > On Sunday 15 October 2017, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I agree that tagging the entire lease area as landuse=industrial is > > not correct. Part of the reason for posting is that I'm looking for > > alternative ways to tag the large

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

Hi everyone, Two months ago I suggested a way for tagging river size, from small to major. It is a very simple proposal, offering just three tags — river=small, =big and =major — and some numeric thresholds for these. Since it hadn't attracted many comments, let's do a vote on that. I'm pretty