FC stage.
This from doing a quick wiki search on "flood". So I think the answer to
your question is a somwwhat qualified "no".
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ture, tagged as
man_made=snowshed, similar to the manner one might tag a way or area
covered by a building. This is appropriate, since the snowshed is a
visible, above ground, structure (at least during warmer times of the year).
--
Randy
___
Taggi
eas.) As a general
rule, a speed zone sign will be found within 50-100 yards of the end of a
school zone.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Randy wrote:
> missed tagged
That's Texan for "mistagged" ;)
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
David Earl wrote:
>On 19/01/2010 17:23, Randy wrote:
>>As something that has a common "look & feel" around the world, so we've
>got a shorthand for a common experience, what would people call
>Starbucks premises in their own languages, and what would you translat
itional complexity of literal
translations from other languages. Still, there are necessary exceptions
to restricting usage to English definitions.
It's a very beneficial process to have these kinds of discussions, as it
makes us all aware of the language differences so that w
ut half of this thread has
been, followed by appropriate changes to the wiki where indicated, are the
proper approach to maturing our somewhat chaotic teenager.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
;t think that's
bending the definition much, just restricting it a little more than the
current use.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
They are few and far between though,
and mostly archaic or historic, due to the inefficiencies of distribution.
And, they are usually, if not always, within the confines of a larger
facility rather than used as a utility.
--
Randy (I confess, I cheated a
ear to conflict with any
currently defined tags.
My preference would be to use power=station for the total power generating
facility, including generation and distribution functions, and
power=generator for the device or possibly the building(s) within the
facility containing t
Steve Bennett wrote:
>Thanks,
>Steve
Personally, if there is a connecting/crossing way, I tag it with the same
tag as the connecting way. If it is just a turnaround, I tag it as
highway=service.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
T
.
I don't want to kick the discussion off again, the issues have already
been addressed in this talk group and in the discussion section of the
covered proposal, I just wanted to provide some background. As always, do
it your way, whichever one that is.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
The property tag covered=yes has been approved, and has been added to the
features list.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:
>
>
>--
>From: "Randy"
>Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:47 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes
>
>>Matthias Julius wrote:
>>
>>>
&g
want to "find the nearest
post box", that's a geographical search, not an address search. Now if
there is no building at the location, and the post box does have an
address, then unless you are adding housenumbers to vacant lots, adding
the add
Just a reminder that the discussion period for the feature
"causeway=embankment/piling/yes" is nearly up. So, if you have any
comments, please make them in the next couple of days.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetma
" to apply to nodes, ways and areas such as parking. Since I'm
the sponsor, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at it, and vote.
I'd like to see a definitive decision on it rather than have it die due to
lack of interest :-( So far, a total of 7 votes.
END OF COM
ly parks in a separate place
from the police, etc.)
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Roy Wallace wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Randy
> wrote:
>>
>>>I think access=destination is natural and expresses concisely "you can
>>>park here if you are visiting an associated business".
>...
>>
>>That sounds good to me,
can add a service road
through the parking lot.
However, I don't think it's worth trying to tag any restrictions on those
two or three slots in front of a shop in a strip shopping center that say
"parking for this shop only".
--
Randy
__
Your considered vote on this proposal would be appreciated.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Randy wrote:
>There have been no comments to the "covered" proposal since the first
>flurry. I'd like to move this to the Approved page if the group has no
>objection, so I'll allow another day for comments, and then move it to
>voting.
>
>Yes, I know th
I have totally renovated the 2007 proposal for a causeway tag and placed
it in Proposal status. Comments are encouraged.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Causeway
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>just go for it ;-)
>
>
>Cheers,
>Martin
Done.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Randy wrote:
situation that started this thread.
>
>The term "embankment" defines the structure on which the road is built in
>the original example for this thread. It doesn't define the highway.
>
I note that there is a Key:embankment wiki page, which suggest
&q
freshing the "Causeway" tag as a property proposal?
I think the problem with the original was that it was set up as
man-made=causeway rather than as a descriptive term of the highway itself,
because the author didn't understand the difference between the highway
and the structure it was built on.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
e proposal talk page) will be
appreciated.
The original draft included the tagging of buried and submerged entities
as "covered." Those have now been removed.
The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature
Randy wrote:
>Randy wrote:
>
>I have made a major modification in the proposal, to, among other things,
>remove association with buried and submerged items, except for items in,
>for example a trench which has a removable cover. This to denote that it
>is normally traversab
Randy wrote:
I have made a major modification in the proposal, to, among other things,
remove association with buried and submerged items, except for items in,
for example a trench which has a removable cover. This to denote that it
is normally traversable, but accessible without, for example
agging@ or on the discussion page of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered.
Thanks,
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
n mind, I have never considered breezeways to be on that scale.
However, there are many situations that can be covered by "covered" that
wouldn't apply to breezeway. For example a "pocket" with a wide opening
for both entry and exit, say to a hotel entrance, but no oppos
what is and is not a tunnel. The tunnel page is the place for
that. There is apparently quite a bit of disagreement about what is and is
not a tunnel, and that may be addressed elsewhere. Whatever a tunnel is,
the covered property is unnecessary for a tunnel, because tunnel implies
it to provide a different layer.
I researched "covered" and "buried" in the wiki, and didn't run across any
conflicts except for a Belgian reference to "man_made=reservoir_covered",
which would indicate a single case of redundancy.
--
Randy
__
characteristics, that is "completely enclosed on
all sides, save for the openings at each end".
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
clearer understanding of
why I might disagree on a few occasions, and have skewed my understanding
a little in your direction.
I'll wait a couple more days to see if there are anymore comments on the
"covered" issue. If not, I&#
r than a
tunnel, assuming "covered" becomes an accepted property for highways and
such.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Anthony wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy
> wrote:
>>To me, in the US, boundary=military makes sense from the perspective that
>>a military base is usually under federal jurisdiction, rather than the
>>state and local jurisdiction of the political/administra
the boundary. And, some other
countries would have some interesting situations to tag where they are
hosting foreign (usually US) military facilities. I'm not sure exactly how
all the juristicional issues break out there.
--
Randy
___
sub-section of the Map Features page (which although it is in
the Non Physical section of the page contains numerous physical
properties), after which I would welcome any appropriate tweaks to the
definition.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
alifier on tunnels, and I'd like
to see it removed. First of all, it's inaccurate. Look at the online
dictionaries. Nearly all of them qualify tunnel as a passage under or
_through_ something. An example (I think in Miriam-Webster) is the passage
through
to using a way, then, in my opinion, a method, that while on the surface
is redundant, is more functional to your purpose, is not only valid, but
preferred.
As you see, my tendency at times is to ramble.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>2009/10/30 Pieren
>
>>On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Randy
>>
>>wrote:
>>>Possibly just "building=roof"
>>>would work (not my idea, someone else suggested it).
>>
>>I have a much bigger preference to
Tobias Knerr wrote:
>Randy wrote:
>>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
>>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
>>roof attached to a building, etc.
>
>If I understand you correctly, this
Anthony wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Randy
> wrote:
>>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
>>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
>>roof attached to a building, etc.
>
Tobias Knerr wrote:
>Randy wrote:
>>I propose that an additional property for highway of "covered=yes" be used
>>for this and similar situations, where a road extends under a building,
>>roof attached to a building, etc.
>
>If I understand you correctly, this
entries/exits being drawn.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
t; gets housenumber='5102' or housenumber='5102 Apt 2'?
If it is truly a point of INTEREST, would you not want to tag it
uniquely rather than just tagging the building? How about a relation
between the building with "addr:housenumber=123", and the multiple
poi's in
>
> Deal?
This is a work in progress. Slow progress, because I AM surveying them,
and I don't have that many hours a week to work on it. So, it will be
quite awhile before I have enough data to make it worthwhile to run a
script. Thanks for the offer. I'll keep it in mind when I ge
Randy Thomson wrote:
> Sounds good Martin. I have about 3000-5000 houses to tag, I'll tag the
> beginning and ending house addresses, on each street, if you'll tag
> the 15-20 individual houses in between. They're in the satellite
> images, so it shouldn't be a
ddr wiki
page. I'll start tagging street addresses this way as soon as time
permits.
I noticed that Mapnik already renders the way properly, although there
is no way to verify the increment. OSMARender apparently detects an
invalid interpolation va
effectively be identical to
> addr:interpolation=2
+1
I like simple. Doing it without a subkey is easier both going in
(mapping) and, i suspect, coming out (rendering).
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
required to use it. That
would be anti-OSM, or anti-anarchist or some other terrible anti that I
don't even want to think of. If that's the case then maybe we agree and
don't know it.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Randy Thomson:
> >> Consequently, in single family dwelling areas, with even/odd
> >> numbering, the numbering sequences go 00, 04, 08, 12, etc. for even
> >> (N/W), and and 01, 05, 08, 13, etc. for odd (S/E) house numbering.
> > >
&g
f you
for getting this dialog kicked off. Hopefully a few more will chime in
along the way and we'll have some sort of consensus in a few days.
Meanwhile, I'm not going to have an opportunity to do any addressing,
anyway.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
s is unknown? Do I
> need to propose an
> addr:interpolation_as_the_word_is_defined_by_everyone_in_the_gis_world
> _except_osm to handle that situation?
My answer to your first question is a labor saving of anywhere from 2
to 10-fold for the mapper. I'm talking about thousands of hous
h; step=1 would
> > have the same effect as all).
>
> I'd agree with that if the numbers 2, 6, 10, etc. were being reserved
> for different lots. But in this example, the lots are really each
> being assigned two numbers.
>
> Something which perhaps should be clari
Granted the number of buildings can be unknown, but is the number of
valid addresses unknown? In my case, the second address is not valid,
and will never be valid, unless a house is torn down and a duplex is
built in its place, which might (or might not) require a zoning change.
--
Randy
Randy Thomson wrote:
> I addressed this topic in the Karlsruhe discussion page, but didn't
> get much constructive input. Maybe it's more of a US problem. Still I
> thought I should bring it here, since tagging has been split off from
> general Talk.
>
> In Fort Wo
ag, and I can't think of a better way to do this.
I'm fairly new to OSM, and this may not be the best way to pursue this
idea, so suggestions, either for process, or for a better solution, are
invited.
--
Randy
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggi
g as they are mapped as
> planned and not as in construction or in use.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Then you are p
60 matches
Mail list logo
