In practical meaning you normally won't
map it this way because it is idiotic. My proposal also reflects that
and provides a way to map such cases without having to do it the
theoretical way.
We should clarify how to handle such cases in the wiki
Cheers
Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
Hello again,
now the other way around:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone
. I did some changes on the content level following Martin
Koppenhoefer's suggestions (
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048818.html
).
This propos
Hi Martin and others,The new proposal overwrites the old one. There's just the new content except the section "Vote 1". What I can do is putting everything in the "content" section into a new page. It is what you - Martin - suggested, outsourcing the "content" section?CheersSören Reinecke alias Val
Did this, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone/content
and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone
.
But anyway I'm not quite happy about the section
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/cont
This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Allen
Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging]
Some asked me to restore the old version, the new version which I want
to vote on can be found here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone_2
id="-x-evo-selection-start-marker">
-Original Message-
From: S??ren Reinecke via Tagging
Reply-To: "Tag d
ne" tag.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Volker Schmidt To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <tag
essage Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Sören Reinecke Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 15:07 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org>:Now I try it the ot
> Others have also made sensible arguments against this.What kind of points? Am I something missing?Overview:- My first proposal: Deprecating "contact:phone" - rejected by community- Reason: "contact" prefix is more orthogonal- My second proposal: Deprecating "phone" - ongoing discussion-
gs for the same purpose are not elegant and makes the use of OSM data harder.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Chris Hill To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: On 04/12/2019 13:41, Sören Reinecke
Welcome Martin,a mailing list like this is probably not the right place to get into the community. Instead head over to a group on Reddit, Telegram, Twitter, Facebook, Discord, IRC, Matrix etc.For Telegram see here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_centric_Telegram_accountsIf you tel
> And make sure osm wikidata handle namespace schemas?Implementing such handling can be done by the developers of mapping tools (JOSM, iD). I also thought about this: Editors converting wrong tags to the right tags e.g. `phone` to `contact:phone`. I'm also happy with shorthands as long as they are
Hello all,I step back from my proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone_2 .CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Sören Reinecke via Tagging To: &quo
> Forgive me, but this is my first time on that list.There's not much to know. Now the discussion part begins, be attentative. Usually the discussion ends after the two week period and then voting takes place.I do not quite understand the definition of your proposal. Allows the tag the mapping of c
Hey all,
A new but small proposal to change the specification for subkey
`changing_table:location` because of a discussion yesterday about using
seperators in values. I totally agree that we should avoid using
seperators when possible.
Proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_featur
s.
Cheers
Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
-Original Message-----
From: Sören Reinecke via Tagging
Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>
To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Sören Reinecke
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (cha
Hey,
a new RFC for
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unifying-playground-equipment-tagging
Purpose:
Simplified tagging of playground equipment on the playground itself or
as separate object. Both schemes already exist and I want to combine
them to help to decrease tagging err
> The current system seems to make sense.
It makes sense but it seems that it is also much error-prone because it
is easy to oversee one sentence in the wiki of Key:playground:* and
Key:playground that makes the difference (pointing the case where the
key should be applied)
> If you have a leisu
> Well the equipment in this case is playground=sandpit.
As the outline of the sandpit is identical with the outline of the
leisure=playground, why would
this be wrong?
Theoretically you need to create an object for the playground itself
and another object for the playground equipment. Both then w
> You are proposing to abandon the distinction between playgrounds and
implicit features on them (properties) and things on a playground
(explicitly mapped playground equipment as a feature).
Not really, playground equipment (tagged with 'playground:') on a
feature tagged with its main tag 'leisur
20 matches
Mail list logo
