Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-19 Thread Dave F
The expression should be 'Tagging /incorrectly/ for the renderer' All tags are to the benefit of the renderer; otherwise the map would be just black dots & lines. DaveF On 17/10/2017 00:26, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: (Yes I can

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-17 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Tuesday 17 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I concede that 'relative road importance' strains that definition. > But I fail to see where any conceivable renderer would be able to get > the information if we don't tag it. [...] The problem you are probably referring to here is that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-17 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Oct 17, 2017 4:53 AM, "Christoph Hormann" wrote: On Tuesday 17 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote: > It's impossible to base a rendering decision on something that isn't > represented by any tag. That is not true, you can produce a lot of information through analysis of the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Yes I can hear the 'tagging for the render' cry from here already. However > this looks to be usefull information that mappers want to tag. > So give them a way of doing it and let the mappers and renders chose to use > it or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread Warin
My present though is that this is trying to convey at what zoom levels these features should appear. These 'importance' tags are starting to appear for all different kinds of things - aerodromes being one. So why not introduce a property tag (like width, height, capacity, pressure) such as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread José G Moya Y .
What I try to say is that the original proposal tagged rivers according to their relative importance in a country. What's the criterium to know if a river is "major" inside a country? Is it its occurrence in the school curriculum? Iregua, which is a very small river (5 m width on its end) was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Monday 16 October 2017, José G Moya Y. wrote: > Ilya, > As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking > about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country, > Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about > absolute size (compared with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ilya, As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country, Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about absolute size (compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are small rivers. On the

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi everyone, Two months ago I suggested a way for tagging river size, from small to major. It is a very simple proposal, offering just three tags — river=small, =big and =major — and some numeric thresholds for these. Since it hadn't attracted many comments, let's do a vote on that. I'm pretty