Am 03.04.2011 04:26, schrieb David Murn:
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 12:11 +0200, Ulf Lamping wrote:
*... and I'll especially call it wiki fiddling if the currently widely
used tags are removed from the wiki without even keeping a note of the
old tags.*
Doesnt the fact that the proposal e
Am 02.04.2011 11:03, schrieb David Murn:
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 14:42 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
This (new ?) schema seems not often used (some plant has the 2).
Excellent example of wiki fiddling ...
at least this was discussed and voted about:
Im sure I remember seeing this discu
Am 27.03.2011 12:24, schrieb Pierre-Alain Dorange:
Following recent international events, i start study nuclear site on
OSM.
Nuclear power plant seems presents and use
power=generator
power_source=nuclear
power_rating=2000 MW
but according to wiki, this was obsolete and
Am 14.02.2011 22:22, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
On 2/14/2011 4:05 PM, yvecai wrote:
Actually, Mapnik would render a 'pointSymbolizer', how would it look
like? Just a label could be enough.
Why not simply use the same style as place=locality?
Because I would like to see the elevation in the la
Am 14.02.2011 14:22, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/2/14 Steve Bennett:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ulf Lamping
wrote:
That was the start of the discussion in 2007, but was changed due to the
changes (around the same time) of highway=tunnel / highway=bridge to
tunnel=yes / bridge
Am 14.02.2011 13:40, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/2/14 Nathan Edgars II:
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=36.76925,-82.20018&z=16&t=T If this isn't
mountain_pass=yes, what should it be mapped as?
IMHO natural=pass would be the most logical way to do it. Natural
describes in it's vast majority
Am 14.02.2011 00:07, schrieb Steve Bennett:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
P.S: What bugs me more is the (not so un)common practice to put the node
near the way (where the sign is?) and not exactly on the road. This makes it
difficult for renderers to detect the kind of
Am 13.02.2011 20:57, schrieb j...@jfeldredge.com:
I guess this partly comes down to the questions of how you define a way, and
how you define a pass. If a particular pass becomes little-used, because a
tunnel or a lower pass provides an easier way to get past the mountains, does
that make it
Am 29.01.2011 13:33, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/1/29 John Smith:
On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them
landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F
Am 13.01.2011 03:08, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/1/12 Ulf Lamping:
In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different "roots" throughout the
ages.
A castle may be build in early medieval ages, continuously extended
throughout those ages, largely changed in the baroque
Am 12.01.2011 17:59, schrieb j...@jfeldredge.com:
Your examples are rather ridiculous. A Viking captain, or King Arthur's sword,
would not be logical items to have on a map.
Hmmm, I guess Pieren is very much aware of this :-)
A building or archaeological site likely would be on a map, and t
Am 10.01.2011 12:28, schrieb John Smith:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:sport&diff=prev&oldid=583789
I'd be more inclined to use the English and shorten it to just sport=cart
Some time ago, I had a look at how sport=motor is actually used. By
looking at
Am 07.01.2011 03:26, schrieb Alan Mintz:
I can't find a tag for the base of operations of a towing service - i.e.
you call them to tow your broken car or truck to a repair shop. The
basic definition would be a service that tows cars and other "light"
vehicles. Truck and other heavy vehicle towing
Am 07.01.2011 00:10, schrieb Steve Bennett:
If by "do their best" you mean, the people involved work hard and in
good faith, yes. If you mean the result is optimal, then clearly not.
There are lots of bugs in mapnik.
Where are the trac tickets to improve the situation?
And just look at the ta
Am 06.01.2011 23:06, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
... but in fact the map is not reliably usable.
Fine, if you think OSM is working unreliably - just go on and start your
own reliable project :-)
If you set up something like an "OSM core profile" and the majority of
people find it useful, this m
Am 03.01.2011 21:20, schrieb Paul Norman:
They both have elements of flow control, but function in quite different
ways and look very different. A weir is used to raise the water level or
control flow, with water flowing over the top. A sluice gate is essentially
a valve for small waterways.
Yo
Am 03.01.2011 02:59, schrieb Paul Norman:
I've set up a proposal for sluice_gates, which are typically found on small
waterways in agricultural areas at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sluice_gate
What's the difference to waterway=weir?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/T
Am 22.11.2010 22:28, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
Ulf Lamping napsal(a):
First of all, please repeat a hundred times on the blackboard: There's
no such thing as a deprecated tag in OSM. Especially not, if the new
proposal is only a few weeks old ;-)
Sure there are depreca
Am 22.11.2010 10:49, schrieb Tom Chance:
Ulf, the proposal introduced a new set of tags to specify the type of
power=generator, deprecating two existing tags. The new set of tags is
more powerful and loses none of the detail made possible by the old tags.
I'm not gonna argue with you, wether th
Am 22.11.2010 10:26, schrieb Tom Chance:
Hello,
Some time ago a proposal to change the way we specify types of power
generators was passed. Unfortunately, the German, Russian, French and
Japanese translations haven't been updated.
Hi Tom!
Please revert the changes in the english page!
A "pas
Am 18.11.2010 10:41, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
Features such as parks may cover a large area, and if the park is
drawn as a polygon, routing software will likely choose the centroid.
The nearest point on public roads to the centroid may however not be
the actual entrance to the park. For example,
Am 17.11.2010 21:43, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
It is accepting that semantically different things can reside under the same
key and that this doesn't cause any problems - except for people like you
that seem to think that a systematic approach is a value in itself.
it depends what you impli
Am 17.11.2010 21:29, schrieb Elizabeth Dodd:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:11:18 +0100
Ulf Lamping wrote:
It is accepting that semantically different things can reside under
the same key and that this doesn't cause any problems - except for
people like you that seem to think that a syste
Am 17.11.2010 18:36, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping:
BTW: High trees often doesn't cover land, the grass (or bushes) below does.
How do you tag this with landcover?
let's say they don't cover the land on the surface, why surface is not
a good tag.
moon
Yo
Am 16.11.2010 22:16, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping:
No, surface was meant (and is in fact used widely) to describe the surface
material of something, being it a highway, beach or whatever. There is e.g.
*no* problem to describe the surface of e.g. natural=beach with that
Am 16.11.2010 13:51, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping:
So what is the *exact* problem with surface?
it extents the usage of surface as attribute for routable entities to
all kind of entities, therefore reducing simplicity for the data
consumers with no benefit at all.
No
Am 16.11.2010 08:30, schrieb Elizabeth Dodd:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:52:07 +1000
John Smith wrote:
I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how
does using landcover make this any better?
natural=beach
surface=sand
Because, if you'd ever been to PommieLand (UK for t
Am 16.11.2010 03:49, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
The problem with surface is that it is currently proposed (and used) to
describe two different things:
1) A property of certain object, which can be area, way, node...
2) What is on the surface of certain _area_ of land ("landcover").
Altho
Am 16.11.2010 02:57, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Am 16.11.2010 00:57, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/15 Ulf Lamping:
The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is broken.
it is clearly an area. What else should it be? All
Am 16.11.2010 00:57, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/15 Ulf Lamping:
as the concept of putting this into leisure, landuse, natural... is simply
broken.
+1
Oh, BTW, as a side-effect, putting this into landcover is *also* broken.
The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is br
Am 15.11.2010 11:39, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
On 2010-11-14 20:30, Ulf Lamping wrote:
landuse=nature_reserve is your own personal concept. Please have a look
at (and make yourself comfortable with) the existing map features before
you discuss here.
Arrogance doesn't bring any respe
Am 14.11.2010 14:24, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
On 13/11/2010, at 12.40, Ulf Lamping wrote:
How is landcover orthogonal to landuse / natural?
Because you can imagine a landcover area overlapping -- or being a part
of -- a landuse area. For example, landuse=nature_reserve might include
Am 13.11.2010 12:58, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/11/13 Ulf Lamping:
Am 13.11.2010 12:04, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
How is landcover=trees any more helpful then widely used landuse /
natural?!?
in the case of landuse: landuse=residential, landcover trees ? Or
natural=beach, landcover
Am 13.11.2010 12:04, schrieb Morten Kjeldgaard:
On 13/11/2010, at 09.27, John Smith wrote:
On 13 November 2010 15:38, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Yes, the landcover tag would be very useful in many instances, and quite
orthogonal to landuse. Are you going to write a proposal for it, Martin?
s
Am 11.11.2010 03:34, schrieb John Smith:
On 11 November 2010 12:18, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I'd prefer keeping landuse values at a minimum, and using subtags
where necessary. For example landuse=residential something=apartments,
not landuse=apartments. Would landuse=conservation work for an
arb
Am 07.11.2010 14:04, schrieb Sam Vekemans:
Hi,
Adding 'culture=community_center' and culture=community_centre' would helpfull.
although there needs to be a clear difference from 'tourism' key.
perhaps 'tourism' is reserved for things that are designed primarly
for the benifit of visitors to the
Am 04.11.2010 06:17, schrieb Paul Johnson:
On 11/03/2010 01:39 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The mapfeatures declare that url should not be used and website should
be used instead. Is this a common agreement? I find url used 3,5 times
more often (260 000) then website (66 800) in the database.
Am 19.10.2010 02:53, schrieb Richard Welty:
On 10/18/10 8:40 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
There has been a very lengthy discussion about the emergency category
- and there wasn't a clear outcome. There wasn't a consensus if the
change is useful at all and it's still unclear what s
Am 18.10.2010 12:20, schrieb Rodolphe Quiedeville:
Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit :
Hi,
I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is
describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles
and t...@h.
[...]
I forgot to say that I've
Am 19.10.2010 01:23, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
my point was that there is no "kiosk like stuff"
I'm not living in a black and white world - do you?
There's a list of stuff potentially sold in a kiosk (at least here in
germany).
I don't know if I can buy public transport tickets at a spec
Am 19.10.2010 00:10, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
could be either food or newspapers/tobacco/sweets/etc. and/or lotto
and/or public transport tickets and/or telephone cards and/or flowers
etc., so it doesn't fit into shop=xy because it doesn't allow to
deduct what is sold/which service is offered
Am 18.10.2010 15:04, schrieb j...@jfeldredge.com:
However, a shop, located in a kiosk, that is selling "cigarettes, newspapers, sweets, snacks
and beverages" is not selling kiosks, so labeling it with shop=kiosk breaks the "label
according to the merchandise sold" principle. A shop that sold k
Am 17.10.2010 11:52, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
shops should be tagged with shop=, which refers to the
kind of stuff sold, also in cases like supermarket or convenience,
which are less obvious then e.g. shop=electronics.
shop=kiosk breaks this rule, as it doesn't refer to the sold products
but
Am 13.10.2010 10:30, schrieb Lennard:
On 13-10-2010 9:43, Peter Körner wrote:
I contacted him and we're still in a very interesting discussion. His
opinion is, that the map-features should list the *most common used*
features and it's clear that with 500 uses, craft does not fall into
this cate
Am 17.09.2010 02:55, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2010/9/16 André Riedel:
Selling cars and sometimes letting of cars:
shop=car
rental=yes
selling cars and renting motorbikes.
shop=car
rental=yes?
Better use the syntax of the proposal: selling cars and letting of cars:
shop=car
rental=car
Am 16.09.2010 23:11, schrieb André Riedel:
2010/9/16 Ulf Lamping:
Well, Sixt will very rarely sell you a car, but a ski rental station very
often will also sell you ski if you like.
I'm not saying that the rental tag is generally a bad idea (I've recently
added this to JOSM presets t
Am 16.09.2010 21:21, schrieb André Riedel:
2010/9/16 Ulf Lamping:
Am 16.09.2010 15:19, schrieb Jonas Stein:
Are there tags missing?
Any other issues?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rental
Yes, it's simply a bad idea.
E.g. a car rental station is very different f
Am 16.09.2010 15:19, schrieb Jonas Stein:
Are there tags missing?
Any other issues?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/rental
Yes, it's simply a bad idea.
E.g. a car rental station is very different from a ski rental station.
It looks quite different, it's used for a very d
Am 24.08.2010 11:02, schrieb Ross Scanlon:
I thought it was there to produce the most accurate map data available
Yes
and then produce mapping information easily.
No, never really been. Generally speaking, OSM tries to make it fun for
the mappers to map stuff. If someone wants to use it it's
Am 24.08.2010 10:46, schrieb Ross Scanlon:
> ...
The renderers would simply have to look in the tagging table to see what needs
to be displayed.
Sounds to me that you have absolutely no clue how OSM is actually working.
Regards, ULFL
Typical.
NFI about database use so you resort to sli
Am 24.08.2010 10:08, schrieb Peter Körner:
Hi
some months ago I started a craft= proposal in my wiki user space:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MaZderMind/Key:craft
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MaZderMind/DE:Key:craft
It has grown over time and I got some questions to move i
Am 24.08.2010 10:29, schrieb Ross Scanlon:
> ...
The renderers would simply have to look in the tagging table to see what needs
to be displayed.
Sounds to me that you have absolutely no clue how OSM is actually working.
Regards, ULFL
___
Tagging m
Am 24.08.2010 09:36, schrieb Ross Scanlon:
Well, I will take a change to 'troll' again about it. This discussion
comes up again and again because we don't have:
a) clear tagging guidelines (*not* rules)
b) mechanism to replace tags
Agree totally.
This (b) would be easily recitified by normalis
Am 23.08.2010 23:37, schrieb John Smith:
Martin, So its ok to shift stuff from tourism but not shift stuff from
amenity to emergency?
No it's not ok to wiki-fiddling emergency, or tourism, or cultural or
whatever - especially not, if a lot of people actually disagree with
that change.
I've
Am 17.08.2010 00:31, schrieb John Smith:
On 17 August 2010 08:24, Ulf Lamping wrote:
What is the benefit to put this all under amenity=school - and then have a
tag no renderer actually can use, because it is far too generic?
The benefit is an existing tag that isn't very specific,
Am 17.08.2010 00:04, schrieb John Smith:
On 17 August 2010 07:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
-1, IMHO no. A dancing school, boxing school, ski school, etc. are
IMHO not in the same category than general-education schools. They
might be classified in one category, but that is IMHO not school.
Am 28.07.2010 00:40, schrieb Richard Welty:
On 7/27/10 8:33 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged
differently. While both are used for putting out fires, fire
extinguishers (a) are limited to use on smaller fires, and (b) are
useful by the
Am 06.07.2010 20:38, schrieb Colin Smale:
On 06/07/2010 18:44, Richard Mann wrote:
I'm not really clear what is the value of tagging a "zone", except in
a note. Why not just use the standard maxspeed tag?
+1
Here in NL it warns you that the given road sign (could be maxspeed,
could be some ot
Am 28.05.2010 23:53, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Martin Bober wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I have filled in a proposal for a tag indicating a high risk of traffic jams
>> and
>> would like to hear your comments.
>
> Nicely put together proposal with examples - good work.
Am 18.05.2010 09:13, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>
>> I propose to add the following to the Parking wiki page, in the table
>> of the "Tags" section, as follows:
>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking)
>>
>> Column "Key": access
>> Column "Va
Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> There's only "room for grey" (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want
> there to be.
Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion.
> I think I do understand your point, though, that you think it better
> to keep using thes
Am 05.05.2010 07:47, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> On 4 May 2010 18:14, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>> 1) allow for the specification of more than one type simultaneously,
>>> e.g. amenity=A;B, amenity=B;C, etc., or
>>> 2) change/specify in more detail the de
Am 05.05.2010 06:17, schrieb John F. Eldredge:
> Yes, that is the origin of the term. However, usage of words shifts over
> time, often into multiple meanings, depending upon context. From what I have
> heard, a "coffeehouse" in Amsterdam, Holland, now means a place that sells
> marijuana, not
Am 12.04.2010 19:54, schrieb Anthony:
> Well, I now see that there are a few. I still don't understand why,
> though, and I don't think we should keep doing something which makes no
> sense just because we've done it in the past.
It's not (only) because we've done it in the past, it's just a lot
Am 06.02.2010 17:38, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> Ulf Lamping schrieb:
>> Am 05.02.2010 12:26, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
>>> Sam Vekemans wrote:
>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image
>>> The problem with this proposal is that there isn't a definition
Am 06.02.2010 03:23, schrieb Jonas Stein:
> Rationale
> Flagpoles are important landmarks.
> Usually they are visible over a long distance.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flagpole
>
> This is my first proposal i hope everything is correct with it.
> Please contact me if so
Am 05.02.2010 23:56, schrieb John Smith:
> On 5 February 2010 23:53, Jonas Stein wrote:
>> How to tag a flagpole / ~flagstaff?
>> I could not find it in the wiki.
>
> I had a quick look on the wiki, couldn't see anything.
>
> try something like amenity=flag_pole and add something to the wiki
Soun
Am 05.02.2010 12:26, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> Sam Vekemans wrote:
>> I edited the page 'image'
>> feel free to fix / edit/ delete
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image
>
> The problem with this proposal is that there isn't a definition which of
> the several images that likely exist for mos
Am 27.01.2010 01:46, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2010/1/27 Roy Wallace:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Woll Newall wrote:
>>>
>>> The appropriate land-use tag is "commercial" (defined as
>>> "Predominantly offices, business parks, etc."), so maybe such things
>>> should be tagged commercia
Am 19.01.2010 08:03, schrieb Liz:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>> d) I don't think it's a good idea to change a tag description two years
>> after it was documented, because the wording is "slightly" wrong for
>> some parts of the engli
Am 19.01.2010 05:54, schrieb Stephen Hope:
> I wouldn't be so worried about it except for the fact that we use
> English tags exactly so that you can make a good guess as to what the
> data means without having to go to a lookup table. When almost all of
> the tags are readable, then an incorrect
Am 18.01.2010 04:47, schrieb Alan Mintz:
> At 2010-01-17 19:33, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> According to the wiki "map features" table, a "power=station" is "A
>> tag for electricity stations. Wires from power lines come in or go out
>> here."
>>
>> Two questions:
>> 1) Does everyone use it this way? W
Am 14.12.2009 21:56, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> It's great that people are looking for specific items like that and
> pointing out discrepancies. Keep it up.
Just one more:
Some JOSM rules contain b= for binary values.
b="yes" means: yes, true or 1
b="no" means: no, false or 0
You seem to take t
Am 14.12.2009 11:59, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Pieren wrote:
> Btw, I do think that OpenHikingMap should interpret highway=cycleway
> exactly the same way as OpenCycleMap, OpenSwimMap,
> OpenMarijuanaMap...etc. They will each render it differently, but it
> should
Am 14.12.2009 11:02, schrieb Pieren:
> What is "core" and what is not ? What is in the wiki Map Features ?
> But anyone can add his tag, approved by 10 or 12 voters in the Map
> Features...
> You cannot fix priorities for other people creating the data or other
> applications using the data. What i
Am 14.12.2009 11:31, schrieb Lennard:
> Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> c) why is that "power=line" and "power=tower" and lot's of others
>> displayed in the map have no entry in the Mapnik column?
>
> These are filtered on in the Datasource, in the SQL its
Am 13.12.2009 11:35, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> Sorry for the spam. Sort of. :)
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/tagsupport
>
> This is getting interesting. Side by side are now Mapnik, Osmarender,
> Potlatch, JOSM, Kosmos, and the Map Features wiki page. It's rather
> amusing, if
Am 14.12.2009 10:05, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Ulf Lamping
> wrote:
>>> Yeah, and I think there is an unfortunate problem where the
>>> wiki/mappers don't want to tell the renderers what to do, and the
>>> renderers don
Am 14.12.2009 01:29, schrieb Steve Bennett:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Ulf Lamping
> wrote:
>> Partly because of differences in the intention of the renderers. It
>> makes a difference if you want to have a nice map or if you want to aid
>> in editing.
Am 13.12.2009 22:41, schrieb Steve Bennett:
Hi Steve!
First of all, big thanks for taking the time to make the differences
visible!!!
To be honest I expected a lot of differences in the renderer rules.
Partly because of differences in the intention of the renderers. It
makes a difference if y
Mario Salvini schrieb:
> Hi Sam,
>
> man_made=lighthouse tells us something about the physical issue of this
> building.
> seamark=lighthouse tells us something about the role as a naval
> navigation mark.
>
> the same problem we have with man_made=beacon.
> Without any further information nobo
Liz schrieb:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Lennard wrote:
>> BTW2: It's halal. What you lack in replying restraint, you make up for
>> with extra letters?
> My keyboard doesn't write Arabic, but I'm quite sure it ain't halal or
> hallall
> or halall - that any transliteration is probably missing somethi
John Smith schrieb:
> 2009/10/14 Ulf Möller :
>> Hello,
>>
>> highway=raceway has recently been added to the Map Features page because
>> it had been added to the Mapnik rendering rules a few months earlier,
>> but there is no information available about the tag.
>>
>> Could someone who knows the d
83 matches
Mail list logo
