> > The core issue here (that I believe we agree on) is that if tags have
> > inconsistent implications, they must be made explicit.
>
> Absolutely true: explicit in the wiki ;-)
I don't think the wiki is a good place for that. Keep in mind that these
defaults would be nice to have in a machine-
> You seem to be implying that increasing the amount of data in OSM is a
> bad thing???
Increasing the amount of _implicit_ data surely is. There are good reasons, why
putting implicit data into databases is usually avoided.
>
> Of course, llama access restrictions probably aren't a top priorit
ns at
certain types of points).
.. And this is just the ambiguity arising between a single language pair!
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 August 2009 02:51
To: Roy Wallace
Cc: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Pro
e reasons I started working as an off-road
mapper in the OSM community in the UK.
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 August 2009 23:26
To: Roy Wallace
Cc: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs
2009/8/14 Roy Wallace :
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Martin
> Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2009/8/14 Roy Wallace :
>>
>> but this is not real "map"-information but it is legal information you
>> could also get from different sources. If a way is legally a cycleway,
>> all the laws and implications
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
> The general format, which could be extended to all kinds of access
> restrictions, is:
> : = ;, where
> X = the standard tag (maxspeed, or access, or bicycle, etc.)
> K = the kind of condition
> L = the value of the condition (in an appropriat
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/8/14 Roy Wallace :
>
> but this is not real "map"-information but it is legal information you
> could also get from different sources. If a way is legally a cycleway,
> all the laws and implications in that county apply automaticall
2009/8/14 Roy Wallace :
>> Absolutely true: explicit in the wiki ;-)
>
> We have a database, let's populate it. The wiki is to help instruct
> people how to best populate the database - it should not be a part of
> the database itself.
but this is not real "map"-information but it is legal informa
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Pieren wrote:
>
>> Of course, llama access restrictions probably aren't a top priority,
>> but it IS a GOOD THING to have llama restrictions in the database.
>
> Yes, it is. In PERU.
I'd be quite happy to know whether I can ride my llama down my street
in Australia
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> You seem to be implying that increasing the amount of data in OSM is a
> bad thing???
If it is millions time the same thing, yes. Look another thread
speaking about TIGER import clean-up.
> Of course, llama access restrictions probably aren't
David Earl wrote:
>So what you're saying is that
>
>- each editor and data consumer has to have its own set of national
>rules and defaults rather than defining them centrally (so inevitably
>they'll end up different);
The editors must have some way to set defaults, the consumers will get a
full
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:24 AM, David Earl wrote:
> So what you're saying is that
...
> - we have to massively increase the amount of data we store by saying
> for every road that it is open 24 hours a day (because some aren't) and
> has a 44 tonne weight limit (or whatever it is by default in you
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:24 PM, David Earl wrote:
> So what you're saying is that
>
> - each editor and data consumer has to have its own set of national
> rules and defaults rather than defining them centrally (so inevitably
> they'll end up different);
>
> - we have to massively increase the amo
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 13:37, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 08/13/2009 01:24 PM, David Earl wrote:
>> realise we are missing a use case (say we discover motorways in Ecuador
>> permit learner drivers to use them [please don't tell me this isn't the
>> case - it's only an example]) we have to add tags to
On 08/13/2009 01:24 PM, David Earl wrote:
> realise we are missing a use case (say we discover motorways in Ecuador
> permit learner drivers to use them [please don't tell me this isn't the
> case - it's only an example]) we have to add tags to every other highway
you don't even have to go that fa
On 13/08/2009 18:20, Norbert Hoffmann wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
>
>> So I say: keep it simple, keep it compatible. Carry on with the simple,
>> established tags we already have, but just clarify the default use
>> classes which apply to each highway tag, PER COUNTRY, and tag exceptions
>> to t
16 matches
Mail list logo
