Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

sent from a phone > Am 25.03.2016 um 13:29 schrieb Alexander Matheisen > : > > And the German version of this article (you can translate it with > Google Translator) says that a secondary road often corresponds to a > certrain legal designation, but it does not have

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 16:36 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen > wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > > > On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen > > >

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen wrote: > Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: >> On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen >> wrote: >> >> > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Montag, den 21.03.2016, 23:26 +0100 schrieb Daniel Koć: > Interesting idea worth testing, IMO. However I suspect in practice > there > will be lot of problems to make it really fly. > > Let's look at the similar simple idea (with scoring based on city > type > and population) used to render

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:20 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 18 March 2016 at 22:15, Michael Reichert wrote: > > > I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable > > concept > > but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable > > and > >

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen > wrote: > > > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is > > subjective, > > but there is no alternative. > > Poppycock. Why? > > As the

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 21 March 2016 at 22:26, Daniel Koć wrote: > Using Wikidata as a base for peaks scoring is worse than basing it on > population, because it's less universal and relies on one particular > website, but I don't reject it at this moment. Actually, counting the links to other

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen wrote: > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is subjective, > but there is no alternative. Poppycock. > As the person who created that station importance draft, I will focus > on stations, but for

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 18 March 2016 at 22:15, Michael Reichert wrote: > I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept > but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable and > suitable for OSM. Just take the timetable or go out and stay one day on > the

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

2016-03-23 11:20 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > What about Frankfurt (am Main) and Wiesbaden? > Frankfurt has a population of 700.000 and a wikipedia page in 156 > languages, the German article lists 107 sources, it has no important > political-administrative function >

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

2016-03-22 17:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > For example, Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, has a population of 25 > 000 and 110 articles. A nearby city, Beit Shemesh, has a population of 100 > 000 and 32 articles. I think that's a great way to decide which city to > display

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Elements with only one or two wikipedia articles should probably ignore their "wikipedia weight". There is always some group of enthusiasts that will make articles about anything. But only in their own language and maybe one more. My croatian wikipedia has articles about hundreds of grass hockey

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 20:27 +0100, Alexander Matheisen wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 22.03.2016, 17:41 + schrieb Philip Barnes: > > > >   > > Every railway station seems to have a wikipedia page, even if is > > says > > no more than can be deduced by looking at it on OSM. > No, only some

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Dienstag, den 22.03.2016, 17:41 + schrieb Philip Barnes: > On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 16:29 +, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:28 Daniel Koć napisao je: > > > > > > Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm > > > tells > > > me > > > just

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > > > > > Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and > is worth using this way or another to indicate importance. > International/domestic/local fares are rather useful and popular > description of

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 16:29 +, Janko Mihelić wrote: > pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:28 Daniel Koć napisao je: > > > > Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells > > me > > just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you > > depict > > it.

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:28 Daniel Koć napisao je: > > Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells me > just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you depict > it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city ranking we >

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:38 johnw napisao je: > > this might be a good solution for ordering the mountains at a national or > international level. > > but It doesn’t work very well (probably at all) for provincial level, > unless all mountains except for the ones on the wikidata

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 3/22/16, Janko Mihelić wrote: > ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis je napisao: > >> >> This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have >> ever dealt with as an OSM mapper. >> > > You actually already have all the data you need, and

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just > look at the number of articles about each peak, and render them according to > that. More articles=rendered at lower zooms. Problem solved,

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

W dniu 21.03.2016 21:32, Janko Mihelić napisał(a): ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis je napisao: This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have ever dealt with as an OSM mapper. You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis je napisao: > > This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have > ever dealt with as an OSM mapper. > You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just look at the number of articles about

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Javbw > On Mar 20, 2016, at 3:30 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > So far as "importance is concerned, that's not "sourced", that's your > *subjective* interpretation. Go google search for: 赤城(Generic images for Akagi) 赤城神社. (The shrine and related shrines) 赤城山

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 02:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > > > Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis : > > > > OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that > > could lead to better rendered maps or better routing. > > >

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 10:28 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and > > prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many > > international tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous > > vents and enjoy the hot

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

I was told point-blank by the head of OSM-carto on github That (as I remember it) https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/323 A) "importance" is unverifiable, so it is useless for OSM. Gravitystorm: "Importance' and related concepts fails the absolutely vital verifiability

[Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of railway:station_category=* : http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html The proposition is 7 years old:

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

sent from a phone > Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis : > > OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that could lead to > better rendered maps or better routing. importance is relative and it depends on your criteria which things you consider

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

W dniu 18.03.2016 18:50, Chris Hill napisał(a): There are no official tags. Only tags that are used and / or documented. I understand it, just used informal wording. I meant "accepted by voting and documented as such on Wiki", which is - well - longer. -- "Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф.

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 19 March 2016 at 17:47, John Willis wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> >> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to >> some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? > > All of

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Javbw > On Mar 19, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Michael Reichert wrote: > > I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept So displaying more important train stations that: - are more well known, so people would look for them. - are popular points for people

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to > some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? All of the examples I have given are all sourced in local culture.

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 19/03/2016 07:41, johnw wrote: OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of things. Mountains are no different. Great! Let's gather lots of data about each place... Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms via some GIS data is

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Andy Mabbett wrote: > It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according > to some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to > whom? The people who live near them? Tourists? Mountaineers? > Ornithologists? Aviators? Geologists? Climatologists? Oil > prospectors?).

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 19 March 2016 at 07:41, johnw wrote: > OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of > things. Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are > worth labeling at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous. It's nowhere near as

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

sent from a phone > Am 19.03.2016 um 08:41 schrieb johnw : first, those internationally unknown volcanoes in Russia won't compete with your Japanese mountains, because they're too far away, what I suggested was aimed at deciding locally what to show/label, not necessarily

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > prominence and topographic isolation, Neither are good measures of mountains, besides for record holders. - There are bigger volcanoes than Mt Fuji in Russia, just north

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 18/03/16 17:38, Daniel Koć wrote: I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of railway:station_category=* : http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html The proposition is 7

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Hi John, Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis: > I was told point-blank by the head of OSM-carto on github That (as I remember > it) > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/323 > > A) "importance" is unverifiable, so it is useless for OSM. > > Gravitystorm: >

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Am 18.03.2016 um 18:38 schrieb Daniel Koć: > and it would be good to have universal scheme instead of > railway:station_category=* or flights_range=*. Looks like it is > being already used and quite popular: You know that you usually have