On 08/19/2013 11:51 PM, Masi Master wrote:
> This is a bit away from the new valley & mountain discus, but has a
> connection to the first mail.
> Tagging should be thought-out with possible examples, if we don't want
> to change the tagging or live with a bad tagging.
Another example I had just y
On 08/17/2013 05:47 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
> * fly [130817 17:13]:
>> On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote:
>>> Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and
>>> not an area?
>
>> Boundaries describe an area but you are right that they are not really
>> boundaries
On 08/08/2013 11:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation
>> with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region,
>> region:type=valley?
>
> I'd use type=multipolygon natural=valley
I'm still not satisfied with type=
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>> Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are
>> fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of
>> such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication
>> for the name placement.
>
> na
On 08/08/2013 08:56 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich
>> Volkmann wrote:
>>> It should rather be a type=collection relation.
>>
>> I really hate "type=collection". One of the worst idea in OSM. All
>> relations are coll
On 08/08/2013 07:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location
>> sounds reasonable.
>
> thing is that place=locality is very generic, you don't get additional
> information what the name refers to, especially if tagged on a node
Unders
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 06.08.2013 15:51, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866
>>
>> which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation.
>> Unfortunately, the relation has some problems:
>>
&g
On 08/06/2013 07:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> For other areas other data types might be more adequate:
> Some years ago on the German ML there was this interesting idea to define
> (fuzzy) areas (e.g. lower scale topographic regions like "the European
> Alps"). You put existing objects (like
On 08/06/2013 04:27 PM, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure
> and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group.
>
> It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across
> it
On 08/06/2013 04:14 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia
>> Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are
>> fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of
>> such areas are not so important, but it's mostly u
Hi everyone.
I'm in the alps, and I've been mapping some areas in the region.
I have two questions regarding tagging where I couldn't find a decent
consensus on the wiki.
There are many areas in the region that go by a specific name. I have
two cases where a group of lakes (as a whole) is known b
11 matches
Mail list logo
