In the last day or two the standard renderer as stop rendering common land
(leisure=common) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311973831
Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c
Plus a discussion in Tagging 05/03
Unsure if this is a step forward. If it's being "misused", the common
tags should be amended to accurately represent the areas, not deprecate
the render. Seems like the tail wagging the
Link to tagging thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043380.html
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:46 Dave F via Talk-GB,
wrote:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c
>
> Plus a discussion in Tagging 05/03
>
> Unsure if this is a step fo
Yup, it's gone. I think the standard thing is use Andy's (SomeoneElse) map
which is likely to retain features of value & relevance to British & Irish
map users.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:35, Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> In the last day or two the standard render
They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to render in the main map,
so I doubt that's a solution.
Any conclusion on how to tag them now?
Perhaps leisure=park, park=common?
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:51 SK53, wrote:
> Yup, it's gone. I think the standard thing is use Andy's (SomeoneElse) ma
And yes, I'm aware that tagging for the renderer is wrong, and that a
common isn't a park. But by making this change carto have effectively
redefined the common tag as deprecated.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:54 Edward Catmur, wrote:
> They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to render in the
On 16/03/2019 12:54, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
Perhaps leisure=park, park=common?
I think any use of common for such a feature fails to understand the
historical and political context of commons (one still referenced by the
Creative Commons licenses).
"Common" was about ownership rat
We map what is, not what was. The historical context is interesting but is
largely irrelevant for deciding what is and is not a common in current UK
context.
You're correct to bring up access, though. To me the simplest rule of thumb
is that a park is fenced, allowing the authorities to control ac
No, Carto is just one way of viewing OSM data. It has a small number of
maintainers and although highly visible does not represent any 'official'
view. Nor, incidentally, does the OSM wiki. Re-tagging things to make them
render on Carto is very poor practice. Use of park would be reprehensible &
de
On 16/03/2019 13:23, SK53 wrote:
OSM tagging is not analogous to the syntax and semantics of a computer
language or API.
Whilst there is possibly a valid point about Plain English, OSM tagging
is, very much, a computer API, albeit one where the semantics are fuzzy.
__
To me the simplest rule of thumb
is that a park is fenced, allowing the authorities to control access, while
a common is unfenced allowing anyone to access it at any time.
The local municipal park here is unfenced, just a row of low wooden
bollards to prevent vehicle incursions. Access on foot
That’s parkland, surely?
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Mar 2019, at 14:32, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> To me the simplest rule of thumb
>> is that a park is fenced, allowing the authorities to control access, while
>> a common is unfenced allowing anyone to access it at any time.
>
> The local municipa
For now, for the commons around Malvern I will add landuse, In most cases
landuse=meadow.
Ian
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:54, Edward Catmur wrote:
> They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to render in the main map,
> so I doubt that's a solution.
>
> Any conclusion on how to tag them n
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:55, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB
wrote:
> Any conclusion on how to tag them now?
>
> Perhaps leisure=park, park=common?
For places in the UK that are actually registered common land, then
I'd suggest using designation=common_land to denote that fact, as it's
an official des
On 16-Mar-19 13:23, SK53 wrote:
No, Carto is just one way of viewing OSM data. It has a small number of
maintainers and although highly visible does not represent any
'official' view.
Yes and no.
For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of
Google maps. If data is not
On 18/03/2019 13:06, John Aldridge wrote:
For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of
Google maps. If data is not visible on the 'front page' rendering, it
might as well not be there.
OSM doesn't have a business model that supports that usage. It is not
something tha
For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of
Google maps.
That's certainly my reason for adding stuff to OSM. If it doesn't appear
on the "standard map" I'm not much inclined to spend hours recording it
and mapping it. If there is a way I can legitimately change the t
On 18/03/2019 14:03, Martin Wynne wrote:
If you suggest to someone that they try OSM instead of Google maps, the
standard Carto map is what they arrive at from search engines:
How do you propose funding such a service?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-G
How do you propose funding such a service?
Hi David,
When I first found OSM the standard map was up and running, so I assumed
that matter had been resolved. It is still currently up and running and
displayed on the front page, so I assume it is still resolved?
If not, perhaps a Donation but
p.s. just noticed there is indeed a tiny Donation link on the bottom
right corner. Perhaps it needs to be bigger?
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
20 matches
Mail list logo
