Hi,
On 04/24/2013 04:26 PM, John Baker wrote:
AFAIC these were typo edits and getting the whole database more
consistent. I have done dozens of changes to fix typos worldwide over
the past few weeks and it would be crazy to have lengthy discussions on
each one for multiple countries in multiple
Just to be clear about what I am doing.
I have been changing many what I consider typos. The majority have been simple
changes I started by cleaning up the lanes tag as I was doing work getting
lanes tagged correctly for the new CartoCSS and lanes=90 (where they was not)
and lanes=two made no
Why do you assume that landuse=grass is more correct than natural=grass.
This is precisely the problem I have with your edits. If I use natural=*
for something someone comes and changes it to landuse=* which is not what I
meant.
I ONLY use landuse=grass for amenity grassland (mainly in cities)
I can sympathise with some of what Jerry, John and Frederik have said here.
There is undoubtedly a lot of slightly inappropriate tagging in the
database, meaning that serious use of the data often requires a lot of
cleaning up. I went around Southwark changing lots of land uses but based
on
To be honest I am struggling to see anything wrong with what I have done.
Let take grass in your example Jerry.
There are always more suitable tags than natural=grass, landuse=grass being the
most obvious there is also natural=grasslands as was pointed out by Tom. I am
aware of these. I am
On 25/04/2013 16:23, John Baker wrote:
There are always more suitable tags than natural=grass, landuse=grass
being the most obvious
Are you claiming that the land *is used for* grass? That the purpose man
has put that piece of land to is just grass? surface=grass yes,
landcover=grass maybe
On 25 April 2013 16:23, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:
To be honest I am struggling to see anything wrong with what I have done.
Let take grass in your example Jerry.
There are always more suitable tags than natural=grass, landuse=grass being
the most obvious there is also
John Baker wrote:
But if there was no existing landuse tag what is the harm?
Without visiting each place and doing an on-site survey, how do you know
what the actual landuse is?
It worries me that these sort of global search-and-replaces are taking
place without any discussion
The best
I think JonathanB is spot on here: if the original landuse tags had been
landuse=forestry, landuse=farming;
landuse=selling_things;landuse=office_drudgery and so on, the widespread
confusion between landuse (usually can be denoted by an abstract noun), and
natural or landcover (which can usually
On 25/04/13 17:00, John Baker wrote:
Wow creating a storm here.
I cannot believe we are have so much discussion about grass. I have
had some before not about this type...
See! Discussion is needed. There are points of view that you don't
understand and didn't find out about because you
On the contrary Chris but I do understand. It seems that many here do not.
The objections still baffle me. I can only presume that anyone doing any edit
without a GPS and physical survey is not welcomed on this list much like the
continuing animosity over armchair mapping/using aerial imagery.
John Baker wrote:
The wiki is a consensus of opinion over the years about how to tag things. The
lack of respect for this I find staggering.
It would be nice if there WAS a consensus. There are a number of
'contradictions' and the area of landuse vs natural has been debated many times
and I
If the original editor applied the tags on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow there is no issue.
There it defines the state of the managed or unmanaged.
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:54:42 +0100
From: les...@lsces.co.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]
Hi,
On 25.04.2013 19:07, John Baker wrote:
The wiki is a consensus of opinion over the years about how to tag
things.
It isn't. There have been more than enough cases where after *years* it
was found that somewhere hidden away in a wiki page there was a
statement that was absolutely not
Just to take take the conversation into another orbit simultaneously, I'd
like to clarify Tom's remarks about natural=wood and landuse=forest being
interchangeable in the UK. I always tag landuse=forest where aerial
imagery shows a regular pattern of tree spacing which is a good indicator
of
Frederik,
Like I said before all these are not scripted/automated and I look for
conflicts. I explained the process I used and that seemed to completed with
your original post here. Are you saying now it does not? *shrug*
And I use both wiki pages and common practice, like I explained
I suspect mapping meadows is a job for experts. I tried asking one and was
told there are no natural meadows in the UK and meadow is a landuse.
Probably time to find another expert. To this extent, for most mappers
natural=meadow and landuse=meadow would certainly be interchangable. If
Funny, I thought a typo was a mispelling, not a change in use or change
of tag.
natural=gras fair enough, but actually changing any subtle definitions of
what a mapper actually meant by the difference between tags cannot be done
by an armchair mapper as someone put it.
What really pees me off (OK
On 26/04/2013 00:32, Roy Jamison wrote:
Doesn't happen in a democratic society, which OSM embodies.
Actually, OSM is more akin to an anarchic society - there is no
government to enforce laws, instead we rely on all citizens to
self-police. This requires a much higher level of personal
19 matches
Mail list logo
