On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:17:37 -0600
Simon Wood wrote:
> I have had a go at tidying the proposed tags for communication towers and
> would welcome any comments.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Communications_tower
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features
>
> Formally recognized or not, mapnik renders man_made=tower.
>
> http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=34.702412609490736&lon=-82.80072603684314&zoom=17&layers=0F0B0F
That is actually a 'water tower'
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/312327421) with tags:
created_by = Potlatch 0.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Adam Schreiber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Simon Wood wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:17:37 -0600
>> Simon Wood wrote:
>>
>>> I have had a go at tidying the proposed tags for communication towers and
>>> would welcome any comments.
>>>
>>> http://w
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Simon Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:17:37 -0600
> Simon Wood wrote:
>
>> I have had a go at tidying the proposed tags for communication towers and
>> would welcome any comments.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Communications_
Adam wrote:
> > Formally recognized or not, mapnik renders man_made=tower.
>
> =water_tower anyway. *whoops*
It does know man_made=mast though which I think corresponds to a
communications tower.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapnik/Tags
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.92357&lon=1.087
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:30:16 +0100
"Ed Loach" wrote:
> It does know man_made=mast
>
Which does not have a page on the wiki, and is not listed on the 'man_made' page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Man_made
So I guess that it's not valid either. It seems that this little corner of OSM
is a
Simon Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:30:16 +0100 "Ed Loach" wrote:
>
>
>> It does know man_made=mast
>>
>
> Which does not have a page on the wiki, and is not listed on the
> 'man_made' page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Man_made
>
> So I guess that it's not valid either. It seems
--- On Mon, 13/7/09, Simon Wood wrote:
> Following suggestions and the fact that 'man_made:tower'
> does not appear to be a formally recognised tag (even if
> JOSM knows about it) I would like to bring the following two
> tags into the approval process.
There is a bazillion man_made=tower's, as
During the discussions I and
other pointed out that man_made=mast is already used, but the "process"
continued. There's no such thing as valid. It is the *open*
streetmap, i.e. all tags are equally valid (which I also pointed out in
the discussion in December 2007). I do think that the discu
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:53:11 +0100
Chris Hill wrote:
> During the discussions I and other pointed out that man_made=mast is already
> used, but the "process" continued.
Please don't take this as anything detremental against Chris or his
suggestions 'man_made=mast' and 'man_made=tower' are
Hi,
With a mighty mouse-click, we can import 30,000 tower=smooth tags :@)
-but of course we wont. (OK, bad joke)
What i can do is edit the big Google Docs chart to list the hyperlinks
to the wiki; or rather, go through the wiki/charts and make pages for
each tags that are (will be) in use.
For thi
--- On Tue, 14/7/09, Sam Vekemans wrote:
> With a mighty mouse-click, we can import 30,000
> tower=smooth tags :@)
> -but of course we wont. (OK, bad joke)
Jokes aside that isn't actually far fetched since the ACMA (Australian
Communications and Media Authority) has a big database of this in
John Smith wrote:
> Jokes aside that isn't actually far fetched since the ACMA (Australian
> Communications and Media Authority) has a big database of this information
> available, although I'm not sure of the license on the data and I don't
> really want to be the one responsible for importing
--- On Tue, 14/7/09, Lennard wrote:
> At the moment, they have been imported in a way that will
> not render:
> height=46
> source=Antennebureau
> source_ref=http://www.antenneregister.nl/
> technology=GSM 900
I'd split the last line into frequency/technology, 900Mhz or similar for freq,
and t
John Smith wrote:
>> source_ref=http://www.antenneregister.nl/
>> technology=GSM 900
>
> I'd split the last line into frequency/technology, 900Mhz or similar for
> freq, and technology could be a bunch of things, from
> GSM|UTMS|HSDPA|WCDMA|WiMax|LTE etc etc etc...
Seems reasonable. The import
15 matches
Mail list logo
