2009/10/28 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net
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
2009/10/24 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net:
- 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
2009/10/21 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
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
2009/10/24 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net:
- 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
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:
2009/10/28 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net
2009/10/24 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net:
- 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
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
airshaft
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:
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. same as
a
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com:
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.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.comwrote:
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
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 you
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 depend on
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
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
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.org
2009/10/21 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
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
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com 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
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
wrongly is better than not to
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:39:48
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal -
RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Lesi wrote:
I
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
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
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 should be able to
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 around
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
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
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
a free standing
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
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
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
2009/10/20 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net
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
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 where
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
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
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
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. Also
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
2009/10/20 Someoneelse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:
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
2009/10/20 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net:
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
2009/10/20 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
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
2009/10/20 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2009/10/20 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
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
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
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
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 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net:
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
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
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
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 to
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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk 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
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
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
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
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 not really
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 deposits
2009/10/20 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
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
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=mineshaft and
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.
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
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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
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 tag.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de 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
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
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
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
68 matches
Mail list logo
