2009/10/28 Lesi
> > how do you define "main area"?
> > Aren't the shafts vertical access / ventilation shafts that
> > lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as
> > part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised).
>
> The main area is the area where all the bigger buildings
> how do you define "main area"?
> Aren't the shafts vertical access / ventilation shafts that
> lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as
> part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised).
The main area is the area where all the bigger buildings of the mine are. An
airshaf
2009/10/28 Lesi
> > 2009/10/24 Lesi :
> >
> >> - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the
> >> mine
> >> the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as
> >> operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate?
> >> mine=...?
> >
> Some questions:
>
> - Do you think it is better to use a namespaced tag (mineshaft:type) or a
> normal tag (mineshaft_type)? In the current proposal the first one is
> used.
> But looking at other features i think that in this case a normal tag would
> be better. It's also bunker_type for exampl
> 2009/10/24 Lesi :
>
>> - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the
>> mine
>> the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as
>> operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate?
>> mine=...?
>
> to associate the mineshaft to t
2009/10/21 Tobias Knerr :
> Dave F.:
>>> However, I believe that using a common key instead of
>>> disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using
>>> different *values* would have been the better alternative.
>> Common Key? Can you give an example?
>>
>> If you mean status=di
2009/10/24 Lesi :
> - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine
> the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as
> operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate?
> mine=...?
to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd no
Some questions:
- Do you think it is better to use a namespaced tag (mineshaft:type) or a
normal tag (mineshaft_type)? In the current proposal the first one is used.
But looking at other features i think that in this case a normal tag would
be better. It's also bunker_type for example:
http://
Cartinus writes:
> Nobody is changing any definitions. They are just using a combination of two
> existing and widely used tags. Much, much easier than writing a proposal for
> a new tag.
If it's obviously the right thing to do, then do it, and DOCUMENT IT
IN THE WIKI so that other people can
Gustav Foseid writes:
> Is it a cafe? No. Should it be tagged as a cafe? No.
Clearly one could verify that the location seems to be a cafe. Thus
this is not a question about whether it should be tagged, but instead
how it should be tagged as a former cafe. May I suggest use of the
Nelson Algori
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping
> wrote:
>> > A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
>> > a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a la
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping
wrote:
> > A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
> > a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is
> > not that uncommon in germany.
>
Dave F.:
>> However, I believe that using a common key instead of
>> disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using
>> different *values* would have been the better alternative.
> Common Key? Can you give an example?
>
> If you mean status=disused, I'm not sure how that get
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Dave F. wrote:
>
>> I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but anyway...
>>
>> Are you suggesting there's no exception rule for renderers?:
>> Ignore all subsequent keys except for ones label disused or abandoned"
>>
>
> I agree that a renderer sho
Dave F. wrote:
> I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but anyway...
>
> Are you suggesting there's no exception rule for renderers?:
> Ignore all subsequent keys except for ones label disused or abandoned"
I agree that a renderer should be able to deal with tags like
disuse
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM:
> We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their
> own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it
> doesn't know without causing problems. If I don't support dist
ve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: "Lesi"
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:39:48
To:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal -
RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Lesi wrote:
> ... There should be man_made=peak.
There will be if you tag one.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> Lesi wrote:
>> I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use
>> natural=peak.
> Not sure what to use at the moment, but they're definitely not natural.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
That's right. But they are peaks. There should be man_made=peak.
The problem is, that after a
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a
> free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not
> that uncommon in germany.
So propose landmark=cafe. Much easier than changing the defini
2009/10/21 Dave F. :
> Someoneelse wrote:
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
>>>
>>
>> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
>> currently - looking in the UK I can
Hi,
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> It is not helpful if you are looking for a list of places that you can
> get a coffee/beer/snack.
>
> If you want to use old cafes as a landmark you could use
> old_amenity=cafe to say that it is no longer open and serving customers.
I see, that would be in the same
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> What part of "former cafe" is it that don't you understand?
the "disused part"
I understand "former_cafe" quite well
and i wonder how we got to cafe from mineshaft ??
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.o
On 21 Oct 2009, at 09:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Peter Childs schrieb:
Yes But,
If a Pub is tagged
amenity=pub
disused=yes
The thing looks like a put (ie large pub like lables) hence
works relatively well as a land mark, it just happens to be closed
and
does not sell Beer anymore. Its still
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> What part of "former cafe" is it that don't you understand?
Well,
amenity=former_cafe
I certainly DO understand. I thought that you were arguing in favour of
the construct further up the thread:
amenity=pub
disused=yes
To my mind a pub that doesn't serve beer some of the
Someoneelse schrieb:
> Ulf Lamping wrote:
>> A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when
>> it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city,
>> which is not that uncommon in germany.
>
> Whether you think it's still a café (or a pub) or not might depen
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
> a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is
> not that uncommon in germany.
Whether you think it's still a café (or a pub) or not might depend on
how hungry or thirsty yo
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
> a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is
> not that uncommon in germany.
>
Is it a cafe? No. Should it be tagged as a cafe? No.
The di
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping :
> A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
> a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is
> not that uncommon in germany.
>
> If you stand in front of it, you'll now this once was a cafe. Larger
> paved area in fro
Peter Childs schrieb:
>
> Yes But,
>
> If a Pub is tagged
>
> amenity=pub
> disused=yes
>
> The thing looks like a put (ie large pub like lables) hence
> works relatively well as a land mark, it just happens to be closed and
> does not sell Beer anymore. Its still useful if its a landmark. sa
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping
> Anthony schrieb:
> > Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no
> > problem. Disused quarry, yes.
> >
> > But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which
> > is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition.
>
> Well,
Anthony schrieb:
> Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no
> problem. Disused quarry, yes.
>
> But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which
> is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition.
Well, yes and no.
People might remember that
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM:
> We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their
> own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it
> doesn't know without causing
Dave F.:
> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
>> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
> Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc.
>
> You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a
> widely used
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>>> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
>>> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
>> Don't map for the renderer, router etc.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> Shaun McDonald wrote:
>> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
>> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
> Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc.
>
> You should be writing a post asking why they
Lesi wrote:
> I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use
> natural=peak.
Not sure what to use at the moment, but they're definitely not natural.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.ope
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc.
You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a
widely used tag.
Cheers
Dave F.
Someoneelse wrote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
>>
>
> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mine
2009/10/20 Liz :
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
>> The
>> area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial.
> Too broad a definition
>
> industrial covers too much
> mining is quite different a landuse
> heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have
> to r
>> Underground resources can not be mapped.
> why not?
> isn't that what a geology map does?
>
> I was commenting on the resource proposal really
>
Now I get your point.
The resource-tag describes for which resource the mineshaft was built.
If the mineshaft is disused, it is irrelevant if the dep
>> > how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
>>
>> If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore ->
>> disused=yes.
>>
>> lesi
> I wasn't thinking of disused, i was thinking of still there, with or
> without a
> mineshaft
Perhaps, my English is too bad, but I do n
>
> but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed
I can not confirm this. All disused mineshafts I know still have their
winding gear, only the cables are removed.
But even if the winding gear is removed you can tag with headframe=yes. Of
courde, if the whole headframe is r
> industrial covers too much
> mining is quite different a landuse
> heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then
> have
> to rehabilitate the area in the same way as mining
I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use
natural=peak.
lesi
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing.
> More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term
> for the building or structure.
I don't claim to be an expert on mining language but pit head is the
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
> Of course I meant adit and not audit. Some people would call it a gallery.
In Australia I've heard
level
gallery
stopes
and probably some other words i've forgotten
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://l
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Shaun McDonald
wrote:
> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM
> data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
But a disused mineshaft is still a mineshaft, it's just an abandoned one.
> As another example for when a road i
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Someoneelse wrote:
> no
> references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using
> currently?
I've used quarry for an open cut mine, but it isn't appropriate for the size
of feature involved.
___
talk mailing list
talk@
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
> Having winding gears is the main purpose of a headframe IMO.
but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tal
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote:
> The
> area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial.
Too broad a definition
industrial covers too much
mining is quite different a landuse
heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have
to rehabilitate the area in the sa
> If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
> OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Instead you
> should use something like old_amenity=cafe, or
> amenity=closed;closed=cafe, that way there won't be any confusion.
I agree with you, but at the moment disu
> I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go
> verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about
> adits,
> that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another
> proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms.
Of course I
> 1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping
> the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from
> the mineentrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way'
> that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going
> into a hillside
> 2. What we want t
I worried that the use of language might prove to be confusing and the the
buildings associated with a mine should have a separate tag.
1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping the location mine
entrances, not the tunnel leading away from the mine entrance. In the future
someone may wa
On 20 Oct 2009, at 14:44, Lesi wrote:
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote:
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
-> disused=yes
Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead
need to ad
2009/10/20 Lesi :
> I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argument half
> of the features of OSM should not be mapped e.g. historic=wreck or streets
> within the ground of a factory. And once again: mineshafts which have a
> headframe are very good points of reference. Often
> On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote:
>
>>> how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
>>
>> If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
>> -> disused=yes
>>
>
> Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to
> add an extra level of indi
> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped
> because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked
> there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't
> get anywhere near it.
I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argu
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote:
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
-> disused=yes
Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need
to add an extra level of indirection, so that
2009/10/20 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 2009/10/20 John Smith :
>> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped
>> because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked
>> there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't
>> get anywhere near it.
>
>
2009/10/20 John Smith :
> There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped
> because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked
> there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't
> get anywhere near it.
You're missing the point: this is not abo
2009/10/20 Lesi :
>> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
>> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no
>> references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using
>> currently?
>
> In the area I map the mineshafts are currentl
2009/10/20 Someoneelse :
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
>
> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=minesha
> and no references to "surface_mining"
There is also landuse=quarry which can be used for surface mines.
But actually they are not part of my proposal - it refers only to
underground mining.
lesi
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://
> It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
> currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no
> references to "surface_mining". Do you know what people are using
> currently?
In the area I map the mineshafts are currently not mapped at all. A
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as
currently - looking in the UK I can see one "man-made=mineshaft" and no
references to "surf
> how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme?
If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore
-> disused=yes
lesi
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> there are mineshafts and BIG mineshafts and open cut mines
> and mining in english has its own language to describe the parts of the
> mine
For open cut mines there is another draft. IMO they are something completly
different.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Peter Childs wrote:
> I agree standardizing on resource might be a good idea but we might need
> resource_output and resource_input or somthing
Are you an economist?
from my worldview which deals with people and biological systems
i don't see an importance in designating wher
2009/10/20 Lesi
> Hello,
>
> based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German
> board
> I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
>
> In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag r
Hello,
based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board
I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft
In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my
proposal resourc
71 matches
Mail list logo
