On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What, then, should be the distinguishing characteristic between
> waterway=canal and waterway=ditch or =drain? Width or importance or
> navigability, or should we still mention the usage as the main
> differen
Thank you for the information about Japan.
How are the small drainage/irrigation channels tagged currently in Japan?
Are most tagged as waterway=drain, waterway=canal or waterway=ditch?
We have lots of these in Indonesia, in the rice-growing areas with
irrigated fields, but most are more like de
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 20:46:28 +0100
From: Paul Allen
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands wrote:
My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact. For example, I c
I had a chance to look at these 4 examples of small artificial
waterways used for irrigation or drinking water and lined with stone
or concrete, suggested to be tagged as =aqueduct
1) This is a shallow, straight waterway about 1 meter wide, which is
the bottom of a wider depression, in a semi-arid
Hi Joseph,
Le mer. 29 mai 2019 à 01:55, Joseph Eisenberg
a écrit :
> I'm a little confused about how to decide when to use tunnel=flooded
> vs tunnel=yes with waterway=canal or other free-surface-flow
> waterways. Is this tag meant to replace all instances of tunnel=yes
> for large waterways, or
Hello,
in the rational, you said "there are many cases where turn:lanes=*
can't provide that information."
could you add a case where turn:lanes are included that more
clearly shows what the connectivity=* adds ?
ideally 2 examples that would have the same turn:lanes value for the
"from" way and
Javbw
> On May 29, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> What, then, should be the distinguishing characteristic between
> waterway=canal and waterway=ditch or =drain? Width or importance or
> navigability, or should we still mention the usage as the main
> difference?
The biggest
Hi
Le mer. 29 mai 2019 à 10:59, Martin Koppenhoefer a
écrit :
>
> What about the practical, human scale distinction we use for natural
> waterways (can be jumped over), wouldn’t it be equally interesting for man
> made waterways?
> Is a canal you can jump over still a canal, or does size somehow
For me all of the look equally fine.
29 May 2019, 15:24 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
> Which of the ways of tagging "irrigation" should be used?
>
> "irrigation=yes" works ok, but it hasn't been very popular the last few years
> "service=irrigation" is still most common, but the key is a littl
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands wrote:
My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact. For example, I can
> see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
> lot. I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
> but I have no idea what they
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 12:47:37 +0100
From: Paul Allen
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 10:51, bkil wrote:
By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag
these
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200
From: bkil
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would
need more information to see what we could gain from
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 20:24:54 -0400
From: Kevin Kenny
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
yes can be i
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 17:05:14 +
From: marc marc
To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
building=occupied
building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-look building with a r
Hey,
I am encouraging you to vote for the Proposal at https://wiki.openstree
tmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table a second time. I'm in
hope to get that approved.
I want to see your choices.
Best regards
Sören alias Valor Naram
___
Tagging
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 14:56, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > "Otherwise it's just a slope."
>
> According to
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/embankment
> in British English the term embankment is defined as "an artificial
> slope made of earth and/or stones".
>
Beware of dicti
> "Otherwise it's just a slope."
According to https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/embankment
in British English the term embankment is defined as "an artificial
slope made of earth and/or stones".
On 5/29/19, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 13:42, Christoph Hormann wr
Which of the ways of tagging "irrigation" should be used?
"irrigation=yes" works ok, but it hasn't been very popular the last few years
"service=irrigation" is still most common, but the key is a little odd
"usage=irrigation" makes sense and is increasing in usage
See chart of usage over time:
ht
sent from a phone
> On 29. May 2019, at 12:53, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> If there are small irrigation waterways that area lined with stone (or
> concrete etc), we probably need a new tag, since waterway=drain is
> pretty strongly associated with drainage, not irrigation, and
> waterway=c
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 13:42, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> man_made=embankment is almost exclusively used for one-sided artificial
> slopes - prominently supported by OSM-Carto rendering it this way.
>
That surprises me. Not that either man_made or barrier was used for
one-sided artificial slop
On Wednesday 29 May 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> How the terms are used may vary from country to country. OSM tags do
> not necessarily
> correspond closely to technical and/or common usage. Meanings may
> differ for
> features like embankments depending upon context (railway embankment,
> fortifi
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 01:20, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> On github, Christoph mentioned that some of these features tagged
> barrier=embankment may be types of earthen fortifications, as found in
> Europe, eg earthen ramparts, earthworks or earth banks.
>
> > "Double/symmetric embankment not conne
> Not sure about small rock-cut waterways with massive impermeable sides, are
> these ditches or canals or drains?
We don't have these in the western USA, but generally our ditches are
dug out of the soil, so I would be surprised to see a feature tagged
as waterway=ditch if it were cut from bedr
Am Mi., 29. Mai 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> > "Double/symmetric embankment not connected to some other primary feature
> like a road... something we in German call a 'Wall' "
>
> It could be translated "rampart" - "a large wall built round a town,
>
sent from a phone
> On 29. May 2019, at 03:37, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> What, then, should be the distinguishing characteristic between
> waterway=canal and waterway=ditch or =drain? Width or importance or
> navigability, or should we still mention the usage as the main
> difference?
I
25 matches
Mail list logo
