On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 4:20 PM Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 11.10.22 à 21:33, Evan Carroll a écrit :
> > We could map these onto the building polygon explicitly
>
> please : one element = one object
> building <> the user of the building.
> so imho it's best to have one object for the buildinng,
>
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 20:10, Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think the wall is so important frankly, but let's assume we agree
> on that.
>
> This fountain has the wall and thus is decorative and is amenity=fountain.
>
>
>
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:
>>> There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities,
>> residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial
>> mixes because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.
>> Landuse has
Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a solution
> first before even thinking of depreciation.
>
I described what I found/considered at
Just a remark: I think a mainly decorative object is not an amenity. An
amenity may be near it, or attached to it, but that still does not make the
object an amenity.
An object that provides water for actual use, such as a tap or a pipe from
which water permanently flows, is an amenity. It may be
Am Fr., 14. Okt. 2022 um 12:10 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> This other fountain doesn't have such wall, thus it is not decorative
> and it cannot be tagged as amenity=fountain (assuming we disregard the
> recreational utility mentioned in the wiki).
>
>
On 14/10/22 11:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, I see the wall behind the trough with the water spout as part of
the fountain, it is a rock carved decorated wall. Or do you believe it
is there just for coincidence?
I don't think the wall is so important frankly, but let's assume we
agree
Am Fr., 14. Okt. 2022 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 14/10/22 06:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot
> > recognize that the fountain is clearly decorated. It is not just an
> > utility,
Oct 14, 2022, 09:58 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:
>
>>> There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities,
>>> residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes
>>> because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.
On 14/10/22 00:03, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:
On 13/10/22 10:15, Warin wrote:
I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a
solution first before even thinking of depreciation.
I do agree and appreciate this approach. A solution for tagging
On 14/10/22 06:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot
recognize that the fountain is clearly decorated. It is not just an
utility, the wall is a part, isn’t it?
Yep.. there is the problem ... 'we' see different things even
On 11/10/22 20:03, Marc_marc wrote:
Le 11.10.22 à 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky :
I would propose the deprecation of the value
fountain=stone_block since it could be tagged as
fountain=driking, material=stone.
There are
On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:
There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities,
residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes
because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.
Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning.
Oct 14, 2022, 03:31 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 13 Oct 2022, at 21:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> Field is landuse=farmland - also when zoned as industrial area or scheduled
>> for
>> residential construction.
>>
>
>
> interestingly not. I
14 matches
Mail list logo
