> On 9. Feb 2019, at 22:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > On 9. Feb 2019, at 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> >
> > IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle.
>
>
> IMHO it doesn’t. One tag describes a tree row, the other individual trees. It
> doesn’t matter that it is the
> Not all land forms are 'natural' by the common meaning of the word.
Ok, but all mountain ranges are certainly natural, by any sense of the word.
If you would like to change natural=peak, =saddle, =ridge, =cliff etc to a
new “landform” key, that should be a separate proposal which includes all
o
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 05:42, Simon Poole wrote:
> The user in question has already been blocked and at least their initial
> changesets were reverted 2 months ago. Naturally any remaining fictional
> edits should be reverted too and the user reported again to tho DWG.
>
Thanks Simon
The whole
On 09/02/19 11:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Thanks for working on this. I had been meaning to reopen the proposal.
No need to introduce a new key. natural=mountain_range is fine, and
has been in use.
For me the key 'natural' is not good. It has a common meaning that goes
against the OSM defin
On 09.02.2019 22:53, Richard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:44:13PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote:
done!
oh well.. now they moved it into some users namespace.
I guess we need category:humor ?
As his opponents in the edit war are taking a break, EzekielT created a new category in this
battl
On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 09:29:58PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> True, but I'm quite sure it is more difficult to fake Google Maps: some time
> ago I had to register an entry in Google Maps and I went through a quite
> secure mechanism that involved Google sending back to the registered address
>
On 09/02/19 10:19, Clifford Snow wrote:
I did create new thread about including other features in wastewater
treatment facilities. Unfortunately I have been side track on other
issues, not necessarily OSM issue, but life in general.
I do plan to continue exploring how to tag the various featur
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:44:13PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> done!
oh well.. now they moved it into some users namespace.
I guess we need category:humor ?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/li
sent from a phone
> On 9. Feb 2019, at 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle.
IMHO it doesn’t. One tag describes a tree row, the other individual trees. It
doesn’t matter that it is the same trees.
Mapping a residential area doesn’t prev
People in search of mapping fictive worlds should consider OpenGeofiction:
https://opengeofiction.net/#map=11/-20.1066/22.4554___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
True, but I'm quite sure it is more difficult to fake Google Maps: some time
ago I had to register an entry in Google Maps and I went through a quite secure
mechanism that involved Google sending back to the registered address a
postcard (yes, a piece of paper) with a confirmation code printed o
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 19:48, Sergio Manzi wrote:
But, yes, "there is *something* out there": Google too report the existence
> of a "Pitchfork Union" POI [1] [2].
>
Google is not immune from vandalism. As this recent report by the BBC
shows:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-47118901
The thing is quite obviously fruit of immagination, creativity, and/or
delusion: there surely isn't out there such a concoction of toll booths (/many
of them/), bunkers, town halls, dams, towers, campgrounds, etc.
The creator's name too, "landhahaha", is also an hint for a probable vandalism.
B
May I point out that this discussion is patently silly?
The user in question has already been blocked and at least their initial
changesets were reverted 2 months ago. Naturally any remaining fictional edits
should be reverted too and the user reported again to tho DWG.
Am 9. Februar 2019 18:2
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 19:19, John Sturdy wrote:
> I think it's also comparable to mapping the pylons of a power line and the
> line itself.
>
I would say otherwise. Power lines are strung between pylons. Often, the
only clue the
line is there is the pylons. Any time the line changes direction
On 09.02.2019 20:15, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Because the two feature types exist at different levels of abstraction
(a tree is *part* of a tree row), I do not see this as a violation of
one feature, one element.
Instead, I consider it comparable to mapping building:part areas within
a building=resid
I think it's also comparable to mapping the pylons of a power line and the
line itself.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 7:16 PM Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 09.02.19 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> > "Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually
> > mapped trees for further details."
> [..
On 09.02.19 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> "Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually
> mapped trees for further details."
[...]
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle. Either I
> choose the coarser approach to map a way for the row, or I refine it to
On 2019-02-09 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On the natural=tree page I stumbled over the phrase:
>
> "Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually mapped
> trees for further details."
>
> On natural=tree_row I found it was part of the 2010 proposal which said:
> "if individu
On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 06:20:11PM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 09/02/19 16:18, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 10:54:16 +1000
> > Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/653287455#map=15/38.0034/-87.6183
>
> In this case they have been mapped as a 'residentia
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle. Either I
> choose the coarser approach
> to map a way for the row, or I refine it to individual trees, but should not
> use the row anymore.
Hello,
My interpretation would be that a
On the natural=tree page I stumbled over the phrase:
"Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually mapped trees for
further details."
On natural=tree_row I found it was part of the 2010 proposal which said:
"if individual trees in a tree row are mapped, the tree nodes shou
Thanks for your messages and the hint to The Mail Archive!
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 02:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Are you storing solids or liquids?
>
> For solids, bunker_silo (which I have never before heard them referred to
> as!) may work?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aman
sent from a phone
> On 9. Feb 2019, at 06:18, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> My usual approach to micronations and fictional countries is to delete
> them, warn the user about mapping things that don't exist (yes, it's a
> form of vandalism), and point them at https://opengeofiction.net/
micronation
24 matches
Mail list logo
