On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:54:57PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 22 May 2015 at 15:29, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > I am uncomfortable with "cascade" - in several languages it
> > means "waterfall" so there is considerable potential for
> > confusion.
> >
> > I agree. A cascade is a waterfall in Am
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 09:26:34AM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> The water feature we are talking about here is an artificial waterfall,
> usually pump-driven.
in that case it might be better to either use normal waterfall tagging
node with waterway=waterfall+ way waterway=weir,
possibl
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 02:00:30PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Am 22.05.2015 um 13:35 schrieb Andy Mabbett :
> >
> > These might be cascades, rills, reflecting-pools, rain-chains, moats, etc.
> >
> > We might, for example, have:
> >
> > natural=water
> > water=cascde
>
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Andreas Goss wrote:
> As you linked to this on the HOT list a few things noticed...
>
>
> What about the typhoon:, earthquake: or tsunami: tags? Replaced with
> damage:event?
>
> What about e.g. damage:building? This could still be used even if you have
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:52:06PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Note that just because you can collect some data, does not make it a good
> idea to put in OSM. Maintenance is harder than collection: and who's going
> to go back three years after the HOT event and clean up?
same is even worse wit
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 04:15:02PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Archipelago?
the text says
<<
Groups of islands:
add the natural=coastline into a multipolygon.
>>
why would I do that?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https:/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 03:03:14PM +0200, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 01:29:48PM +0100, SomeoneElse wrote:
> > Regardless of pebbles vs pebblestone, where did the distinction of
> > "gravel=sharp, pebblestone=rounded" come from? Is there any way to
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 01:29:48PM +0100, SomeoneElse wrote:
> Regardless of pebbles vs pebblestone, where did the distinction of
> "gravel=sharp, pebblestone=rounded" come from? Is there any way to easily
> see who first contributed a particular section of a wiki page?
wikiblame would do it but
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:22:07AM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Mateusz Konieczny
> wrote:
>
> >
> > IMHO it would make editing and using data harder. It sounds like
> > something that should be improved by a better interface for editors
> > (grouping similar tag
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:16:47AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-04-24 11:01 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > so are you happy that this
> >
> > http://www.bergsteigen.com/klettersteig/trentino-suedtirol/gardasee-berge/ferrata-rino-pisetta
> > is tagged as h
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:27:23AM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 24.04.2015 02:16, Warin wrote:
> > Via ferrata should not be lumped into path or footway .. they are very
> > significantly different and cannot be used in place of a path or footway.
> > Would you take a 3 year old along it?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:57:06AM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 23.04.2015 11:59, Richard Z. wrote:
> > there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so
> > I have ammended the wiki:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pr
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:16:55AM +1000, Warin wrote:
> Some minor things ..
>
> overhang ? Should not 'covered' be used?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered
overhang here means an additional technical difficulty of the
path.
Key:covered could be used in addition to that.
Ri
Hi,
there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so
I have ammended the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria_for_taging_as_either_via_ferrata_or_path
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@opens
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:31:23PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-04-20 18:14 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :
>
> > IMO you guys are kidding yourselves if you think most mappers actually
> > measure the depth of rivers before drawing in the "main stream"
>
>
>
> yes, it is not the typical
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 07:16:22AM +0300, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I think redefining waterway=dam is gonna be a hard sell for most Americans.
> But now thanks to this list I understand why some reservoirs I've worked
> with in Thailand have had the name of the dam applied to the water behind
> them
having a second look at it -
geological=volcanic_lava_channel — way — lava flowing in a defined direction
for wide lava channels it would be usefull to define the shape
somehow?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://l
I have lifted the scheme originally proposed by Mike to
a proposal page, did not have time for details yet.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Volcanic_features
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists
Hi,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dlava has some
thoughts how to map lava fields and calderas - I think those should
be finalized and documented.
Cut & paste
Lava fields
natural=bare_rock ("rock" being used in the broad sense of a consolidated
(solid) or unconsoli
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 01:26:35PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Just discovered, this was changed only one year ago by user geozeisig,
> before there was a recommendation for areas as well:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Anatural%3Dvolcano&diff=996213&oldid=995784
n
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:31:36PM +, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> On 26/03/2015 12:35, Richard Z. wrote:
> >How do people think about it? Should we generalise that approach
> >or seek another solutions?
>
> The way I have approached this is to map separate areas above an
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:42:45PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Am 26.03.2015 um 13:35 schrieb Richard Z. :
> >
> > Current practice of having it end exactly on the shoreline
> > is both incorrect and a technical complication for mappers.
Hi,
it is mostly so that an area eg natural=bare_rock does not
end at the shoreline but extends some way under the water.
Current practice of having it end exactly on the shoreline
is both incorrect and a technical complication for mappers.
In many cases some of the underwater racks would be easy
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 01:49:26PM +, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> On 18/03/2015 11:58, Richard Z. wrote:
> >so should for example the OpenSeaMap tagging for bridges become
> >deprecated?
>
> Not deprecated, but considered on a case-by-case basis. It is a question o
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:31:12PM +, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> On 17/03/2015 16:06, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> >Is there something I'm missing?
>
> No, you have spotted the fact that (as always!) that the documentation is
> unfinished. I had done it on this page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 08:50:48AM -0500, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> >
> >
> > For boat navigation purposes this should be crosslinked:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Gates
> >
>
> Isn't it the other way around? That is, the people who tagged
> seagate:category:gate=lock (24 obje
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:53:21AM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> According to wiki[1] waterway=lock_gate should be used only on nodes. Some
> are tagged on
> ways[2]. Why wiki considers node as the only valid element where this tag
> may be used? Is it
> because page is older than mapping river
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:57:28AM +1100, Warin wrote:
>
> Mapping a maze path would reduce the enjoyment of the maze .. at least for
> me. Even if it was a single path.
spoiler_warning=yes ?
I do not think that is necessary:
#1 you don't have to loook at the map before going through the maze
#2
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:05:27PM +, Dave F. wrote:
> Hi
>
> What's the purpose of bridge=movable?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:movable
>
> It's good that the different types of bridge are tagged & the graphics are
> excellent, but I'm unsure why they need to be separat
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 05:34:04PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Would "layer" work for this. A layer of zero for something you can't pass
> at ground level.
> A layer of -1 for pipelines. A layer of 1 for ski lifts and areoways.
No.
Aerialways (most of them) and powerlines have an implicit lo
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:22:10AM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> The Trans-Alaska pipeline has many underground sections and these have no
> layer tag. Why that is, I don't know. It also uses a key "type" to specify
> what it carries. In this case type=oil
this would be a case where location=unde
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 07:14:36PM +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>
> > The proposal looks good, add "location=*" to it.
>
> I dislike location=* for various reasons. But you may use it if you like.
the proposal could be more detailed in this point. How do
you tag conveyors above ground? As b
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Goods_conveyor
>
> I resurrected this old draft, because we need a tag for this and I know of
> no alternative tag currently in use. I wonder if "goods" may be misleading,
> b
l in the Alps to
> supply alpine huts (where everybody can get something to eat and stay
> overnight)
> with everything that is needed. The only alternative there is a helicopter
> flight...
>
>
> On 19.02.15 12:24, Richard Z. wrote:
> > try harder to find an english w
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:05:40PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > How is routing software supposed to know that some aerialway=goods are
> > actually taking passengers?
>
> like roads tagged with "access=no" or &
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:48:33PM +0900, johnw wrote:
> I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze
> is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger
> complex.
>
> Then it would be
>
> tourism=attraction
> attraction=maze
> maze=he
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:49 PM, fly wrote:
>
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aerialway#Usage
>
> -1
>
> I don't like such general keys like "usage" (or "type") in general.
well the key is already here and perfect fit for ae
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 05:57:47AM +0100, Andreas Labres wrote:
> On 18.02.15 14:36, Richard Z. wrote:
> > suggest deprecating this particular value of aerialway
>
> -1
>
> A "Materialseilbahn" is a special type of aerialway (Seilbahn) and should have
> its ow
Hi,
suggest deprecating this particular value of aerialway as there are
much better ways to map industrial/freight lines with usage=* and
foot=* type restrictions.
The new description is already in:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aerialway#Usage
discussion:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.or
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:09:10PM +0900, John Willis wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Am 17.02.2015 um 21:52 schrieb Richard Z. :
> >>
> >> Deci
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:19:35PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> Richard Z. wrote on 2015-02-17 15:26:
> >>
> >>Otherwise you need to deprecate playground=zipwire.
> >
> >ok, I am in favor of deprecating playground=zipwire. Large share of aerialway
> >
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:32:21PM +0100, fly wrote:
> Am 17.02.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Richard Z.:
> > Hi,
> >
> > RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened:
>
> This was a typo. True is aerialway=zip_line.
>
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature
Hi,
RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/aerialway%3Dzip_line
Regards,
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm :
>
> >
> > If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the
> > forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a
> > lifecycle tag of "removed".
> >
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:22:51PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also
> agreed and has changed the description.
thank you all for the unexpected attention, the problematic text snippet
was cut&paste from [[Comparison of li
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 03:03:21AM -0700, NopMap wrote:
> On the other hand, just reverting them does not feel right to me either.
> Some of the examples have their merit.
>
> What do you think?
so lets look at the points that were reverted:
##== Disadvantages of semicolon separated lists ==
#
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:14:53PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> >
> > usually you will assume it if there are ponds of open water or swamps
> > in several places along a valley.
>
> A pond/swamp/oasis/cienega in an arid or even semi-arid area is a significant
> feature that deserve mapping in its
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 07:50:36AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> Based on where I sometimes see old wind driven pumps, I'd guess that many
> longer (10s of miles long) washes have an underground flow.
I think so.
> On the other hand, in the field or using Bing imagery neither I nor any other
>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:44:27PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Since the current term wadi can mean something more than the actual
> watercourse, why not drop it and use "ephemeral=yes" or
> "intermittent=ephemeral" on waterway=* to indicate that it carries water much
> less often than a waterway
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:23:33AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Since we are supposed to use British English, I decided to look up wadi in my
> old paper edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (can we trust that more
> than Wikipedia?):
>
> "Wadi or Wady [Arabic: وادي wādī] In certain Arabic spe
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:41:26AM +0900, johnw wrote:
> I strongly disagree. A wadi is usually only an active river through very rare
> flash flood events, and almost never any other time. Entire biomes are
> defined by the presence of (and situated in) a wadi.
>
how about reading wikipedia?
ate multi-valued tags with semicolons, how about
> "club:chess=meeting_place"? Then multiple clubs could use the same
> building, each with a different role if required. Otherwise use a simple
> node (per club) within the building to indicate some relationship
> between the club and
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:13:07PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-11-24 13:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
> >
> > According to the approved
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Club
> > chess has an own club=chess, as has fishing, automob
sorry, didn't see your email earlier.
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 09:27:03AM +0100, Andreas Goss wrote:
> >The club page seems to suggest
> >that club=sport + sport=cycling type tagging should be used for competitive
> >sports.
>
> Which in my optinion is a bad idea, too. There is really no generel
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:08:56AM +, Lukas Sommer wrote:
> Just as a reminder: Voting is still open at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex_junctions
question - key:junction has many more possible values than just
"yes" for the single point variant. Are
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-11-04 22:56 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> > This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been
> > approved by voting just 2 years ago.
> >
>
>
> arguably it is not too late, there are only 4
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:29:04AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-11-05 11:03 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > > Would is be possible to make natural=coastline usage more clear on
> > > place=island wiki page?
> >
> > or - would it be possible to m
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:22:03AM +0100, Peter Svensson wrote:
> I have seen many users doing the mistake of tagging an island inside an
> lake as natural=coastline.
>
> I suspect that the root cause in many cases might be the wiki page for
> place=island. The page encourages the use of natural=c
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:54:46PM +0900, johnw wrote:
> Thanks Alberto, Mike & Martin for the suggestions. I was a avid hiker in the
> US, but this was the first time for me to encounter such assistance devices
> myself. never knew their collective name until now.
>
>
> Dan - I understand ab
Hi,
following some discussions on github (1) and talk-at (2) I have tried
to clarify the definition of natural=ridge in the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dridge&diff=1104725&oldid=998905
Not sure if this is good enough, personaly I would prefer a single ridg
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could
> you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ?
>
> This guy did it :
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:47:48PM +, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> On 29/10/2014 14:12, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >I don't know about other countries, but here in Finland the water maxspeed
> >signage is in km/h although knot is used for almost everything else.
>
> In UK waterways, both MPH and knots
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> >>
> >> The assumption is that a large
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > Also, I am reading the arguments about estimating bay area so I am curious
> > - when was the last time someone asked about bay area in square kilometers?
> &g
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Eric Kidd wrote:
> But the key point here is that none of these official sources represent
> bays as polygons. GNIS uses a pointssomewhere in the bay. The nautical
> charts print the name somewhere in the middle of the bay. Effectively, the
> official data
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:28:39PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-10-27 12:16 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders
> > > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an
> >
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:33:48PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > > Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not
> > > > coastline is usually not well defined and would re
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 26/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined
> > automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an
> > area - except for the outer edge of cou
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 05:12:20PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
>
> It is really rare to see it done this way - but it is doable, see
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/5CQ
not practical in most cases. Almost every bay is part of a larger bay
and s
Hi,
just noticed that http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddive_centre
has a reference to sport:scuba_diving=yes in the infobox.
However, the reference points to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sport:scuba_diving
which is redirected to Key:sport:scuba_diving
Should the stale
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:46:45PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> I like this tagging, but as an ex-diver I do feel it needs some
> expansion.
>
> compressor=yes/no
> To indicate whether there is air available to refill tanks or not.
this would be mostly covered by
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wi
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 03:42:35PM +0200, Andreas Goss wrote:
> Can you please stop trying to come up with exceptions for the sport= tag?
>
> Just saw this on scuba diving:
>
> > Should be used to mark a place for scuba diving, preferably as an
> attribute of natural=beach, natural=stone natural=
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:22:34PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-09-02 16:14 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
> > Wikipedia does not agree with Martin:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontoon_bridge
> >
>
>
> it depends on the language ;-)
language problems are a disaster for us.
Yeste
Hi,
the approved and currently active proposal for bridges is not
quite clear on this - the older "bridge=pontoon" was not obsoleted
but a new "bridge=yes"+"bridge:structure=floating" was introduced
with the description "A bridge whose load is supported by floating
on water, rather than resting
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:08:25AM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote:
Hi,
added a table to the page, maybe this way it is easier to see
which additional cases should be added.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreet
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:36:04PM -0300, John Packer wrote:
> I'm not sure that's the right mailing list for talking about this, but it's
> probably the closest
>
> Am I the only one that dislikes the "Map Features" templates on the wiki?
> (example: [1])
>
> I think they make it harder to edit
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:43:36AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
> I would modify the section [1] by replacing "it is recommended" by "it
> is suggested" and adding at the end a note saying that a large part of
> the community consider these two tags -smoothness and
> maxspeed:practical - too subjective.
I
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> So which is the preferred tagging?
>
> If waterway=wadi then I have some OSM editing to do but at least the renderer
> should be easy. If waterway=stream, intermittent=yes then I need to get some
> changes done by the project who's re
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:33:16PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 23/ago/2014, alle ore 21:08, Ilpo Järvinen
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > How much of such ways that would be a candidate for maxspeed:practical
>
>
> IMHO this is a highly subjective tag that depends heavily on
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:55:15AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 2014-08-23 10:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
> 12 000 ways is really low number in this situation. Surface tag is used on
> nearly 9 million roads, number of highway=* ways crossed
> 76 million.
possibly it is
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:surface#maxspeed:practical
> for proposed change
with 12000 ways already tagged maxspeed:practical and lack of alternatives
I would think twice removing any documentation.
Richar
Hi,
another mapper metnioned to me that it is unusual to have
attribute values with a minus, like
bridge:structure=cable-stayed
On the other hand, it is an apporved proposal - what are the
opinions on that?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
>
> * for ensuring good data; and
> * to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
>
> Currently the descriptions in the green box on the
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote:
Hi,
> yes i changed the values because i found the differentiation between
> "customary with prevalent nudity" and "permissive but not prevalent nudity"
> difficult.
>
> But i had a mistake in my description, it should be:
> "designat
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:08:25AM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote:
>
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted
> but is nevertheless in use.
>
> Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pro
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > what else can I do?
> >
>
> Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag
> man_made=bridge seems to be use
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:54:21PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Maybe a more generic tag like dress_code would also catch these places? This
> was already proposed some time ago IIRR.
this was already discussed on some talk page - why can't I find it now? :(
> It could also be inter
>
> i was also thinking about that. i think it is only neccesary if a former
> nudist place is changed to a place where clothing is expected
>
in some areas nudism is so prevalent that it is a good idea to use
nudism=no in places where it is not expected/allowed. In other areas
it would not mak
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 05:50:06PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 15/ago/2014, alle ore 23:52, St Niklaas ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > I would go for building=bridge, since a bridge is a building
>
>
> actually a bridge isn't a building according to standard terminology, it i
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 05:32:20PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 14.08.2014 13:18, Dan S wrote:
>
> >>> I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that "At the moment
> >>> there just a
> >>> tag to map the entrance to a cave." despite fact that existing tags fit
> >>> well.
> >
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote:
> I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature
> to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be
> applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing
> hilly terrain; all
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:31:28PM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard :
>
> > On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
> >
> > Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
> > cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:54:11AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess
>
>
> > As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
> > some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out
> > the critique a bit
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:25:33AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
> > Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to
> > make it render at all.
>
> Note that bridges that are buildings actually exist. [1]
>
> But adding building=* to a bridge when it's not the case would be
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > what else can I do?
> >
>
> Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag
> man_made=bridge seems to be use
is to solve a known rendering problem in
> > bridges.
> > Nowadays, when two or more parallel ways are in a bridge/viaduct, they are
> > drawn as separate bridges.
> > Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John
> >
> &
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:02AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
> PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that.
I have removed the area around this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25397414
and filed this ticket as it did not render sanely:
https://github.com/gra
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:02:39AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
> Richard,
> Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related
> to this proposal:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge
yes, I am pretty sure it was a desperate attempt to mak
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
