Christoph Eckert wrote:
> I agree some additional code needs to be written to support multiple tagging
> schemes. But IMO it's not an issue (except of conceptual or language issues
> of the consumer). A shop=bakery in Great Britain surely will differ from a
> shop=boulangerie in France. But I co
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>> Sprinkle your data with note="bla bla" tags so it's possible to see
>> what the meaning was.
>
> So your solution is to have a database which is human-understandable
> (with a lot of reading and ef
Hi,
> why fix it later, that creates extra work? and what do you mean
> 'fixed'? i thought having them mapped with one of 3 different tagging
> schemes was a good thing?
I agree with Dave's responses so won't repeat them. Just a few extra points:
> no-one's forcing anybody. lots of people use ma
Erik Johansson wrote:
> Sprinkle your data with note="bla bla" tags so it's possible to see
> what the meaning was.
So your solution is to have a database which is human-understandable
(with a lot of reading and effort) but not computer-understandable?
That seems to break rather a large number of
Christoph Eckert wrote:
> What I was meaning was the other way around: IMO there's nothing wrong with
> having more than one tagging scheme for one and the same thing. If there was
> highway=footway, highway=foot_way and highway=way.foot in the database,
> what's the (really huge) disadvantage?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/1 Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> ... which can be fixed at a later time, if desired. Trying to create rules
>
> why fix it later, that creates extra work? and what do you mean
> 'fixed'? i thought having them m
2008/9/1 Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ... which can be fixed at a later time, if desired. Trying to create rules
why fix it later, that creates extra work? and what do you mean
'fixed'? i thought having them mapped with one of 3 different tagging
schemes was a good thing?
> upfront runs a
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>If I can get 100 people to map something by allowing three different
>>ways of doing it, then this is much better than getting only 51 people
>>mapping it the "one true way".
>
> here here
This is such a bad
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 01 September 2008 9:27 AM
>To: robin paulson
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path rendering in the cycleway
>
>Hi,
>
>robin paulson wrote:
>>> I think we shouldn't vote on tags at all. Instead, we should m
Hi,
> OK, so several thousand people are using amenity=foo. Are they all using
> it for the same thing? How can you tell?
true. There's landuse=farm on the Map Features page. Some used it for farm
land, some for farm yards (thus farmyard had been introduced, which only
solves half of the issue
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> which can be fixed at a later time, if desired.
How? Say 100 different mappers are using a particular tag - 50 one way,
50 another way. How do you fix this "at a later time" without going back
to the places on the map and working out which of the two possible
situation
Hi,
robin paulson wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't vote on tags at all. Instead, we should monitor what
>> gets
>> used most by the mappers (see Tagwatch and the tool announced by
>> Schuyler Erle).
>
> one of the problems with this, is that it's highly likely two mappers
> will develop two co
Christoph Eckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I think there are two messages here, firstly we should be really careful
>> about voting for new features in the core tagging list unless they are
>> strictly necessary,
>
> I think we shouldn't vote on tags at all. Instead, we should monitor what
> gets
> use
Christoph Eckert wrote:
> I think we shouldn't vote on tags at all. Instead, we should monitor what
> gets
> used most by the mappers (see Tagwatch and the tool announced by
> Schuyler Erle).
I don't know about Schuyler's tool, but the massive problem with using
this "popularity-based" approac
2008/8/31 Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> i think we could bring a semblance of sanity and consistency to the
> tag proposal and voting process quite simply
I think by far the largest issue with the current process is unless
you push a proposal it probably won't go anywhere. Proposals can si
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and I haven't even mentioned the issue of z-ordering all of this
God, z-ordering. I hadn't even thought of that :-(
Cheers,
Andy
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
htt
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:12 AM, spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And second each added tag makes a) parsing slower b) the stylesheet more
>> unreadable (for maintainers).
>
> Yeah - from the mapnik side of things we've
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:12 AM, spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And second each added tag makes a) parsing slower b) the stylesheet more
> unreadable (for maintainers).
Yeah - from the mapnik side of things we've already had Steve Chiltern
asking for help. The filter rules become immense qu
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it is really confusing for tags to appear on the main list of
> features (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Map_Features) which then
> don't get implemented by core applications
I think it is really confusin
Peter Miller wrote:
[...]
> we should be really careful
> about voting for new features in the core tagging list unless they are
> strictly necessary [...]
especially when they overlap with or attempt to supersede existing tags
+1
cheers, Chris
Send instant messages to your online friends ht
2008/8/31 spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OSM is a kingdom divided in pricipalities. And each of this principality is
> governed by a "Benevolent Dictator" with very different views on how and what
> OSM is and how/what maps should look like. You will never see the same
> features rendered on Mapn
Hi,
> I think there are two messages here, firstly we should be really careful
> about voting for new features in the core tagging list unless they are
> strictly necessary,
I think we shouldn't vote on tags at all. Instead, we should monitor what gets
used most by the mappers (see Tagwatch and
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 06:50:46AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> I think there are two messages here, firstly we should be really careful
> about voting for new features in the core tagging list unless they are
> strictly necessary,
Hear, hear! +1
> and secondly when a tag does get added then we
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Eckert
> Sent: 30 August 2008 21:13
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-talk] Path rendering in the cycleway
>
> Hi,
>
> > highway=pat
Hi,
> highway=path has never been rendered on the cyclemap.
>
> highway=footway is currently rendered, so if you want it to appear,
> then you'll need to use that tag.
was it possible to add highway=path?
Best regards,
ce
___
talk mailing list
talk@o
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Elena of Valhalla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've noticed that paths are no longer rendered on the cycle map (were
> they once? i believe so, but i'm not sure) and that is unfortunate for
> my abuse of the cycle map as an hicking map, but understandable :)
Hi
I've noticed that paths are no longer rendered on the cycle map (were
they once? i believe so, but i'm not sure) and that is unfortunate for
my abuse of the cycle map as an hicking map, but understandable :)
however, it seems that the names remained (at zoom level 15 - 17)
http://openstreetma
27 matches
Mail list logo
