Obviously not.
I was only answering in-thread, sorry for such a misunderstanding.
Is that the only problem you see regarding what is proposed ?
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
2014-07-22 12:00 GMT+02:00 Chris Hill
On 21/07/14 22:00, François Lacombe wrote:
Hi Gentlemen,
[snip]
Thanks in advance for any feedbacks.
Are women forbidden from commenting?
--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Hi Gentlemen,
Well, I hope you'll be fully satisfied with the last edition of the power
transmission proposal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#overhead_power.3Dline
Instead of introducing a brand new line:type key, I've extended the
definition
Hi Alv,
I'm sorry this particular point disappoint you and be such a disagreement
reason.
Our views aren't the same regarding power line model and they do have been
well explained on wiki and on this mailing list (and on the gravitystorm's
github indeed).
JOSM already asking you a voltage=* tag
On Jul 9, 2014, at 2:07 AM, François Lacombe wrote:
JOSM already asking you a voltage=* tag on any power=* object.
Which I, as a mapper more interested in roads and trails, ignore as I don't
know what to put there and I'd rather have nothing than something that is wrong.
Many of the
2014-07-09 15:40 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com:
Which I, as a mapper more interested in roads and trails, ignore as I
don't know what to put there and I'd rather have nothing than something
that is wrong.
You're absolutely right.
JOSM ask for voltage to encourage users to look
On 09/07/2014 09:44, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Calling it replacement doesn't mean it's not deprecation. The
proposal is still trying to deprecate power=minor_line, and to remove
the simple physical distinction between really big thing on big
pylons vs. smaller overhead lines that you can often find
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl wrote:
1) This proposal requires a voltage tag to distinguish big and small
power lines. If mappers don't add a voltage tag then it's probably because
they don't know the voltage and this information is often difficult to get
hand
If really you insist to have an indication for minor, we can introduce
line:type=minor/major but I definitely recommend to get this out of the
primary tag.
Ok ?
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
Hi Martin,
This topic goes on Talk page :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#Some_suggested_smaller_changes
Cheers
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
2014-07-06 19:13 GMT+02:00
Am 05/lug/2014 um 22:43 schrieb François Lacombe
francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu:
Introducing power_tower=* and power_pole=* to store values instead than
tower=* or pole=* may be a possibility.
Do you agree ?
yes, I'd support this to avoid confusion with tower:type associated
Am 06/lug/2014 um 19:12 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
Am 05/lug/2014 um 22:43 schrieb François Lacombe
francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu:
Introducing power_tower=* and power_pole=* to store values instead than
tower=* or pole=* may be a possibility.
Do
Am 04/lug/2014 um 17:48 schrieb François Lacombe
francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu:
* tower:type is already used a lot with man_made=tower
tower=* and pole=* got some values to replace tower:type=termination and
transitions like tower=air_to_ground or tower:type=air_to_ground
I
Hi,
I spent a little more time this week on the power transmission proposal.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement
Here are the summary of the modifications I made.
Most of this come from feedbacks left by all during the first vote, I hope
it will
14 matches
Mail list logo
