On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Gerald A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> It's nice to say that the renderer should follow the community, but
>> this does presume the community is moving in one direction. It's also
>>
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> It's nice to say that the renderer should follow the community, but
> this does presume the community is moving in one direction. It's also
> fairly presumptuous that the renderer author has the time or
> inclination to cod
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM, elvin ibbotson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel there is a need for a little
> management - possibly even a committee or working party - with respect to
> the basic data structure. I would suggest a little less freedom in the
> matter of feature typing, with ever
Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate.
>> According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former.
>
> Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it m
elvin ibbotson wrote:
> I once tried tagging a local river as a railway line. Nothing
> prevented me doing this. In the database it was (until I went back in
> and fixed it) a river AND
> a railway!
That's not too outlandish. No railways here, but lots of roads:
http://www.wetroads.co.uk/long.ht
Nic Roets wrote
"The problem is that OSM has a lot of "momentum" (users remembering
tags, tags being hardcoded into all kinds of software, hundreds of
wikipages etc). So changing tags should not be done lightly."
This is perhaps the only one of dozens of recent comments concerning
taggi
David Earl escribió:
> On 10/11/2008 11:18, Marc Schütz wrote:
>
>>> Gerald A wrote:
>>>
Renderers should be following the project. If the community
decides one tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the
renders will catch up eventually.
>>> But the com
Dave wrote:
> If everybody starts using barrier=gate ultimately happy that
> it's much
> better than highway=gate, then at some point the renderers will
> follow.
I've just checked the Osmarender stylesheet for z17 and it contains:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
On 10/11/2008 11:18, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> Gerald A wrote:
>>> Renderers should be following the project. If the community
>>> decides one tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the
>>> renders will catch up eventually.
>> But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use
>> highway=b
> Gerald A wrote:
> > Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one
> > tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up
> > eventually.
>
> But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use highway=barrier
> rather than barrier=gate.
It has
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it?
>
> i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes there's a
> time penalty.
>
> Certainly there are oodles of "gated roads" in rural Britain where
> this applies - there's one on my stretch of NCN. :)
>
T
Gerald A wrote:
> Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one
> tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up
> eventually.
But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use highway=barrier
rather than barrier=gate. Besides, renderers ar
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd agree that tagging a gate means "there is a gate here" - so let's
> not assume that it blocks routing.
This assumption of traffic restriction is also inherently urban, gates
are increasingly used to control animal t
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate.
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone proposes
>> or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone proposes
> or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. When
> those flaws are pointed out,
That is by no means unique to OSM. Unix
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate.
> > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the
> former
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tordanik wrote:
> Nic Roets schrieb:
>> According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate.
>> According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former.
>>
>> Is the community OK with this ?
>> If yes, why aren't
Ed Loach wrote:
> I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show
> there is a gate across a way. Examples I've seen so far include a
> gate beyond which is a service road for a supermarket (so
> permissions for the service road are down to who the keyholder is,
> gates across f
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Gerald A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Because it would break every existing gate out there
>> relying on a "legacy" renderer.
>
> Leaving aside the question of the gate tags completel
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Gerald A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one tag
> over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up
> eventually. Or we should allow tagging for renderers, which I would be
> against.
On 09/11/2008 12:32, Gerald A wrote:
> Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one
> tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up
> eventually.
That may be indeed what many people would say, but in the absence of any
standardisation of tag
On 11/9/08, Ed Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard asked:
>
>
> > Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it?
> >
> > i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes
> > there's a
> > time penalty.
>
>
> I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show
>
On 09/11/2008 13:01, Ed Loach wrote:
> Richard asked:
>
>> Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it?
>>
>> i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes
>> there's a
>> time penalty.
>
> I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show
> there is a gate across
Richard asked:
> Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it?
>
> i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes
> there's a
> time penalty.
I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show
there is a gate across a way. Examples I've seen so far include a
gate bey
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Because it would break every existing gate out there
> relying on a "legacy" renderer.
Leaving aside the question of the gate tags completely, I want to address
this bit of your points.
I hear lots about not tagging for dis
Nic Roets wrote:
> Can we agree that a barrier=gate node implies that no traffic is
> allowed through unless it's enabled with tags like access=yes and
> foot=yes ?
Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it?
i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes there's a
time pena
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 11:34:37AM +0100, Tordanik wrote:
Personally, I'd agree if my contributions were bot-changed in cases
like
this, but there are people who wouldn't. Maybe it is possible to set
up
an opt-in bot that only "updates" tagging of those users who have put
themselves on a list
Nic Roets schrieb:
> According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate.
> According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former.
>
> Is the community OK with this ?
> If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ?
Because we cannot tell whe
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate.
> According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former.
Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm
not su
Pieren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd much rather have the discussion here on the list (or on a
>> dedicated list).
>> If a consensus has been reached Map Features can be updated. I don't
>> think there is a need fo
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd much rather have the discussion here on the list (or on a
> dedicated list).
> If a consensus has been reached Map Features can be updated. I don't
> think there is a need for a formal voting process (especially if i
> How does a UK printed map of France look like?
It probably depends on the publisher. I have to hand a 2001 Europe
Road Atlas, printed in the UK by Collins. This doesn't distinguish
between primary and trunk roads in the UK (all are red) and
Motorways are green with two narrow yellow lines down t
Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course not, green trunk roads and blue motorways don't make a lot of
> sense in 99% of the world. It makes sense in the UK, where this project
> happens to have started, so now that it became a true worldwide
> project, why can't we give other countri
"Robert (Jamie) Munro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I for one don't vote very much, but do care about due process and the
> results. I will follow the tagging advice that has been voted for,
> because I know that several people have thought about the issues and
> more of them thought one option w
On Wednesday 22 October 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > vegard wrote:
> >>> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile
> >>> and in China?
Of course not, green trunk roads and blue motorways don't make a lot of
sense in 99% of the worl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> vegard wrote:
>>> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in
>>> China?
>> Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all,
>
> Ok, then: "Is it really so important for routing software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start
>>> putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on
>>> Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:11:21AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> If I put my mind to it, I could easily muster enough OSMers I know
> personally to turn over the highway=gate vote next month, just for the
> fun of it. That should demonstrate to you how little weight the process
> carries.
>
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> vegard wrote:
>>> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in
>>> China?
>>
>> Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all,
>
> Ok, then: "Is it really so important for routing software to work
> identically
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:54:52AM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Let me disagree. You are implying that just because I can add stuff to
> map features, I can also decide to mark all highway=* as deprecated? I
> think we should supercede highway=* with path=* because that makes so
> much more sen
Hi,
vegard wrote:
>> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in
>> China?
>
> Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all,
Ok, then: "Is it really so important for routing software to work
identically in Chile and in China"?
Look at it this way: How many C
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
>>> We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start
>>> putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on
>>> Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and
>>> everyone else. That's
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:11:14PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> vegard wrote:
> >I agree. this democracy and meritocracy thing is good for something, but
> >for the map to be really useful as a *world* map and not separated
> >islands,
>
> Is it really so important for the map to look th
Hi,
>> We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start
>> putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on
>> Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and
>> everyone else. That's why we don't want to go down this road. (And
>>
Hi,
vegard wrote:
> I agree. this democracy and meritocracy thing is good for something, but
> for the map to be really useful as a *world* map and not separated
> islands,
Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in
China?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:34:39PM -0400, Matthias Julius wrote:
>
> I also think it is confusing if two equivalent tags are recommended
> for the same thing. If by whatever process it is determined that a
> new wah of tagging gates is recommended the old tag should point to
> the new one with th
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Map Features is a documentation of what is used, not of what someone
> thinks should be used.
The first paragraph on Map Features says it is "a core recommended
feature set and corresponding tags", and to me a recommendation is
something that should be
Hi Sergio,
> also followed the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/
> Proposed_features#Post-vote_clean-up
> wich clearly mentions the "Add entry to Map_Features page."
Which is ok (I think you mixed up things by adding the barrier=*
under the highway=* section but I fixed that).
It doesn
Matthias Julius wrote:
> IMHO, if someone has the authority to put something on Map Features
> someone also has the authority to change or remove something or mark
> it as deprecated.
Let me disagree. You are implying that just because I can add stuff to
map features, I can also decide to mark all
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to
>> achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with
>> the old tag, what does forcibly rem
hi
this is Sergio Sevillano aka User:Sergionaranja
sorry for the inconveniences.
I think I have behave correctly though...
I wanted to have linear barriers in use, so I found the barrier proposal
which was the best option for it, and i promoted it along with other
users to be approved as it wa
> I am also thinking about renaming the page altogether. There is simply
> no room for the word "deprecated" here. I'm just unsure about the new
> name. "Old features"? "Older features"?
I dosn't like the world "deprecated" too.
But I guess there should be a mechanism, to show the users which tags
Hi,
Matthias Julius wrote:
> IMHO, if someone has the authority to put something on Map Features
> someone also has the authority to change or remove something or mark
> it as deprecated.
Map Features is a documentation of what is used, not of what someone
thinks should be used.
There is a rath
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is no authority in OSM that has the power to mark anything as
> deprecated.
IMHO, if someone has the authority to put something on Map Features
someone also has the authority to change or remove something or mark
it as deprecated.
>
> I have mod
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matthias Julius wrote:
> > Anyway, after a tag has been removed from Map Features
>
> Of course nobody would remove a tag from Map Features as long as it is
> still widely used! It seems that User:Sergionaranja was
Hi,
Matthias Julius wrote:
> Anyway, after a tag has been removed from Map Features
Of course nobody would remove a tag from Map Features as long as it is
still widely used! It seems that User:Sergionaranja was unclear about
this and has accidentally removed highway=gate and others from Map
Fe
David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I were a tool author (which I am, of course, but namefinder is not
> interested in gates; however the same principle applies to any
> "deprecated" tag), for a widely used tag I would feel I needed leave the
> old one in indefinitely for backward compa
On 20/10/2008 18:27, Matthias Julius wrote:
> "Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to
>> achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with
>> the old tag, what does forcibly removing the old tag actually get
"Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to
> achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with
> the old tag, what does forcibly removing the old tag actually get you?
> Perhaps a cleaner data model, or a smaller p
Raphael suggested:
> Whats about a clean-up-day?
> At a given day, every year/quarter/month, all "deprecating"
> tags will
> be converted.
> With a list about which tags this will would be for the next
> clean-up-day. So there is a chance for doing this by hand in
> your
> region.
I'm still not c
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Raphael Studer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> sergio sevillano wrote:
the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs
to barrier
*barrier=gate *
shall we run a script to do this?
>>>
>>> No, because this would
Hi,
>> sergio sevillano wrote:
>>> the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs
>>> to barrier
>>> *barrier=gate *
>>>
>>> shall we run a script to do this?
>>
>> No, because this would break existing rendering. First make sure the new
>> tag is supported by the majority
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sergio sevillano wrote:
>> the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs
>> to barrier
>> *barrier=gate *
>>
>> shall we run a script to do this?
>
> No, because this would break existing r
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:49:32PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> sergio sevillano wrote:
> > the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs
> > to barrier
> > *barrier=gate *
> >
> > shall we run a script to do this?
>
> No, because this would break existing rendering. F
Hi,
sergio sevillano wrote:
> the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs
> to barrier
> *barrier=gate *
>
> shall we run a script to do this?
No, because this would break existing rendering. First make sure the new
tag is supported by the majority of renderers - ot
68 matches
Mail list logo
