Andreas Labres wrote:
Continuing dispute between the two groups
I was suggesting that a state of peaceful co-existence can be achieved -
Our editors will not alter or remove tags that are not ours, and
hopefully this will be reciprocated.
Which means- from a mappers perspective- to
2010/8/20 Christian Wagner wagnerschrist...@gmail.com
..
Unfortunately I want both- OSeaM cannot show most of my safewater
buoys, doesn't render white light beacons etc- for sure nobody is
perfect, so no offence. FT has some other drawbacks (e.g. no proper
Garmin maps). Recommending to
Hi Christian,
the problem for a Garmin-Map at the moment is the limited value of
possible Icons in the Garmins (around about 30-60 icons only). But FT,
vor example has over 300 different icons, raising tendency ;)
Regards
Mario
Well, so far I think it would be enough to render the
So it would appear that we actually have
* one official proposal, currently under discussion (also used by FT)
* one private scheme, with private tags (exclusively used by OSeaM)
Now, the thing is I'm not really sure about this assessment. What I wrote
above is my current
On Wednesday 18 August 2010 12:41:55 you wrote:
Hi Bernhard,
thanks for your reply. This message has become longer than I initially
expected, as I added some general thoughts of mine. Please do feel free to
ignore those and concentrate on open questions. :)
Hi Arne,
I'll answer your mail
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 23:54:55 you wrote:
Bernhard R. Fischer wrote:
For a long time now I am interested in tagging seamarks.(short
version)
Same here. I always knew that there wasn't anything near to consensus about
much of anything on that front though, with a lot of bad blood
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 21:40:55 Malcolm Herring wrote:
Andreas Labres wrote:
Continuing dispute between the two groups
I was suggesting that a state of peaceful co-existence can be achieved -
Our editors will not alter or remove tags that are not ours, and
hopefully this will be
Hi Bernhard,
thanks for your reply. This message has become longer than I initially
expected, as I added some general thoughts of mine. Please do feel free to
ignore those and concentrate on open questions. :)
Bernhard R. Fischer wrote:
[...] Also FT puts just an overlay on top of the
I found a wonderful motto at the top of the user page of one of the OSM
system administrators, TomH:
I don't give a flying monkey's for tag voting, automatic changebots,
endless discussions, categories, or any of that crap, but prefer to get
on and actually do stuff.
This echoes my
I know that OSM is the place that 'You too can be an Anarchist' (just
like everyone else...) ,but after watching discussions on roads, sea
marks, addresses, etc. I feel like the OSM community is missing
opportunities to leverage individual data contributions when they
can't all be tied together in
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Malcolm Herring
malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com wrote:
I don't give a flying monkey's for tag voting, automatic changebots,
endless discussions, categories, or any of that crap, but prefer to get on
and actually do stuff.
This echoes my sentiments exactly!
The data models specified in:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lights_Data_Model
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buoy_Data_Model
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beacon_Data_Model
(more will follow as we progress)
are all part of the OpenSeaMap project. They define a namespace with
tags
On 17.08.10 11:42, Malcolm Herring wrote:
Since these tags relate to nodes not used by OpenStreetMap, we (i.e. the OSM
community as a whole) do not have to decide on one scheme or another since it
has no impact on the map.
-1.
Continuing dispute between the two groups (accompanied by
Hi,
Malcolm Herring wrote:
The data models specified in:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lights_Data_Model
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buoy_Data_Model
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beacon_Data_Model
(more will follow as we progress)
are all part of the OpenSeaMap project.
I
I have tagged 4 buoys in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) according to the two
tagging schemes, if you take a look at this changeset you can see that all
the necessary information is repeated several times, just a consequence of
two similar-but-different tagging schemes for the same thing. Actually for
me
Andreas Labres wrote:
Continuing dispute between the two groups
I was suggesting that a state of peaceful co-existence can be achieved -
Our editors will not alter or remove tags that are not ours, and
hopefully this will be reciprocated.
and become productive (get nice renderers, get
Malcolm Herring wrote:
Andreas Labres wrote:
Continuing dispute between the two groups
I was suggesting that a state of peaceful co-existence can be achieved - Our
editors will not alter or remove tags that are not ours, and hopefully this
will be reciprocated.
Not realistic IMHO. At
Bernhard R. Fischer wrote:
For a long time now I am interested in tagging seamarks.(short version)
Same here. I always knew that there wasn't anything near to consensus about
much of anything on that front though, with a lot of bad blood in the German
OSM community, which is one of the
Hi,
As a professional master mariner I see the problem here, and I fully agree
with you.
I think the first step in a process to merge the two tagging schemes is to
fully document them both. I have been active in the discussion one of them,
while the other have been closed to a small circle, and
Hi!
For a long time now I am interested in tagging seamarks.(short version)
Now I found out that there are two comparable but different and competing
tagging schemes:
* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/marine-tagging
*
20 matches
Mail list logo
