Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-16 Thread Liz
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
   simple example
   I tagged shop=lawyer
   On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in
 shop  but office=legal.

 I saw that.  Simply because someone else offered a different idea
 doesn't make your idea not good.  If I suggested that it should be
 tagged shop=office AND office=legal, would that be a better idea?
This comes from a discussion of whether we should
 tag and be dammed or 
spend all night searching the wiki for an appropriate combination or
write a schema covering every possible case before we make an edit.

I don't believe that any one is correct to the exclusion of all others




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-16 Thread Russ Nelson
Liz writes:
  On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
 simple example
 I tagged shop=lawyer
 On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in
   shop  but office=legal.
  
   I saw that.  Simply because someone else offered a different idea
   doesn't make your idea not good.  If I suggested that it should be
   tagged shop=office AND office=legal, would that be a better idea?
  This comes from a discussion of whether we should
   tag and be dammed or 
  spend all night searching the wiki for an appropriate combination or
  write a schema covering every possible case before we make an edit.
  
  I don't believe that any one is correct to the exclusion of all others

Ah!  Then you agree with me, because I propose that people tag AND
read/write to the wiki.  Neither being damned nor staying up all
night.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread Russ Nelson
Dave F. writes:
  The just go ahead  do it philosophy that some advocate just puts 
  errors into OSM that may not get fully removed, especially if they've 
  been around for a while  have been copied by others.

Please go back to my proposed steps.  What errors do you see defined
there?  The only error that I see is to fail to document your use of a
tag in the wiki.  Because other, more serious errors, are averted by
your attempt to document it.  If it's already there, and has a
different meaning than the one you have chosen, there's your red flag
that proceeding would be an error.

Map it, tag it, and document it.  Worry less about making a misteak,
and map more.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread Liz
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
 Map it, tag it, and document it.  Worry less about making a misteak,
 and map more.
could we make research other tags in similar use be part of this list 
and make the search process easier?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread Russ Nelson
Liz writes:
  On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
   Map it, tag it, and document it.  Worry less about making a misteak,
   and map more.
  could we make research other tags in similar use be part of this list 
  and make the search process easier?

This google search has always worked for me:
site:wiki.openstreetmap.org landuse orchard

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread Russ Nelson
Liz writes:
  On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
   Before you propose a tag, you should be using it.
  
  Why?

To show people how you're using it.  http://osm.org/

  Doesn't it make sense to ask around before using something -
  someone may come up with a good example they are already using,

If I want to use key=value, and key=value isn't defined yet, then *by
definition* anybody else's example isn't good.  If it was good, then
it would capture all the key=values that have the same meaning.

For example, if you think it should be boundary=military/service=army
rather than boundary=army, then you should put in a redirect from
Tag:boundary=army to Tag:boundary=military#army .  If somebody
disagrees with you, they can edit that page away from being a simple
redirect, insert their reasoning and include
Tag:boundary=military#army as a link to other people have different
opinions.

  or a simple reason why your tag is not good.

Could you list some simple reasons, please?  I don't understand what
you mean by not good.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread Liz
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
   or a simple reason why your tag is not good.

 Could you list some simple reasons, please?  I don't understand what
 you mean by not good.
simple example
I tagged shop=lawyer 
On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in shop
but office=legal.
Within the last month, I'd say, it you want to search for it.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread John Smith
2009/10/16 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com:
 Liz writes:
   On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
    Before you propose a tag, you should be using it.
  
   Why?

 To show people how you're using it.  http://osm.org/

Just because you use something, doesn't mean you picked the right
combination of a key/value pair and that someone else couldn't suggest
something better before you waste your time doing something that will
only need to be re-done.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread Russ Nelson
Liz writes:
  On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
 or a simple reason why your tag is not good.
  
   Could you list some simple reasons, please?  I don't understand what
   you mean by not good.

  simple example
  I tagged shop=lawyer 
  On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in shop
  but office=legal.

I saw that.  Simply because someone else offered a different idea
doesn't make your idea not good.  If I suggested that it should be
tagged shop=office AND office=legal, would that be a better idea?

Neither one is documented in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office=legal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=lawyer

(A note to anybody who thinks the wiki shouldn't be the be-all and
end-all: do you think that tags should all be documented?  Do you
think they should be documented in one place?  Then if not the wiki,
where?

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-15 Thread Russ Nelson
Pieren writes:
  
  On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
   Why wait?  Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki.
  
  No, no and no. If you are unsure or unhappy with existing tags, then
  document, suggest and discuss before putting crap in OSM !

Why?  If it's documented, in what way is it crap?  If you see
something, and tag it with foo=bar, and then write a page at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foo=bar describing why the foo
key is set to the value bar, then 1) mappers who think to use the same
tag can use it the same way you did, and 2) anybody who's looking at
the map data can look at your documentation to understand what foo=bar
means.

The only problem with tagging foo=bar is that it's not likely that
anybody else will choose the same key, value pair.  Okay, so solve
that problem by tagging it with boundary=military.

The only remaining problem that I can see is that somebody might look
for Tag:boundary=military, not find it (which is actually currently
the case) and create their own definition for it.  But that's an
argument for tagging boldly to which you've already objected.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
 Joseph
 In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for specificly
 military activities, like those discribed in the wiki.
 Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I
 don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can
 it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential
 area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary).
 Gilles

might be true for residential and forest (still if it is a small
forest could IMHO be as well inside the residential area), but there
is other examples where e.g. forest or lake or railway-area or sth.
else is inside another landuse, thus being part of it. Think of parks,
a lake in the forest, a forest in a nature reserve, a forest in a
military area, ...

If it is not part of it, it has to be excluded by the use of a
multipolygon-relation.

cheers,
Martin

PS: What about continuing this discussion only in tagging-ML?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Russ Nelson
Gilles Corlobé writes:
  I propose to add a tag boundary=military

Where is this tag currently being used?  Please point to several
examples so we can see what you mean.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Gilles Corlobé
 -Message d'origine-
 De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
 Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38
 À : Gilles Corlobé
 Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org
 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
 - RFC - (boundary=military)
 
 Gilles Corlobé writes:
   I propose to add a tag boundary=military
 
 Where is this tag currently being used?  Please point to several
 examples so we can see what you mean.
This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here :
http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--
Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a
high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and
accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility).
Gilles


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Shaun McDonald


On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote:


-Message d'origine-
De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38
À : Gilles Corlobé
Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
- RFC - (boundary=military)

Gilles Corlobé writes:

I propose to add a tag boundary=military


Where is this tag currently being used?  Please point to several
examples so we can see what you mean.

This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here :
http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--
Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a
high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and
accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility).


Before you propose a tag, you should be using it.

Do you have any photos of this? For example signs.

Shaun



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Gilles Corlobé
 -Message d'origine-
 De : Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk]
 Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 17:46
 À : Gilles Corlobé
 Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org
 Objet : **SPAM ENGLISH BODY** Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
 - RFC - (boundary=military)
 
 
 On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote:
 
  -Message d'origine-
  De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
  Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38
  À : Gilles Corlobé
  Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org
  Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
  - RFC - (boundary=military)
 
  Gilles Corlobé writes:
  I propose to add a tag boundary=military
 
  Where is this tag currently being used?  Please point to several
  examples so we can see what you mean.
  This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here :
  http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--
  Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a
  high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and
  accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility).
 
 Before you propose a tag, you should be using it.
 
 Do you have any photos of this? For example signs.
 
 Shaun
The photo on the page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_area commes
from there.
And before using it, I wanted to get its approval from the community. But if
it's ok, I'll do it.

Gilles


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Russ Nelson
Gilles Corlobé writes:
  This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here :
  http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--

Why wait?  Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Gilles Corlobé
 -Message d'origine-
 De : talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
 boun...@openstreetmap.org] De la part de Russ Nelson
 Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 17:54
 À : talk@openstreetmap.org
 Objet : **SPAM ENGLISH BODY** Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
 - RFC - (boundary=military)
 
 Gilles Corlobé writes:
   This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here :
   http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--
 
 Why wait?  Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki.
I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval.
It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
 Why wait?  Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki.


No, no and no. If you are unsure or unhappy with existing tags, then
document, suggest and discuss before putting crap in OSM !

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread John Smith
2009/10/14 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
 I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval.
 It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--

 Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid
 advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and
 having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not.
 And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits.

Or update the same thing 10 times because once you do tag and update
people will say it's wrong and you should have done it some other
way...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Morten Kjeldgaard

On 13/10/2009, at 10.14, Gilles Corlobé wrote:

 Hello everybody,
 I propose to add a tag boundary=military : the problem is that,  
 with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly  
 lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking  
 lot, …
 Rather than multiplying the military=* tag, I suggest to only mark  
 the external limit of the military area.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_base

 Comments are welcomed on 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Military_base

To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already  
existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you  
mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential.  
Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of  
the boundary is the military area?

Cheers,
Morten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Liz
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
 Before you propose a tag, you should be using it.



Why?


Doesn't it make sense to ask around before using something - someone may come 
up with a good example they are already using, or a simple reason why your tag 
is not good.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2009/10/13 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
 I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval.
 It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--

 Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid
 advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and
 having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not.
 And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits.

+1. But you will have to change the wiki, if your proposal wasn't
good, that's why I'd recommend to first ask, than make the proposal,
unless you're very sure (I did the same mistake yesterday, btw).

actually I still think it's a duplicate that comes from a
misunderstanding of the rules, that is, you shouldn't tag 2 landuse=xy
to the same object, but of course you can have overlapping ones. I
recommend to tag landuse=military, because that's what it is, and
probably an appropriate barrier.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Dave F.
Shaun McDonald wrote:

 On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote:

 -Message d'origine-
 De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
 Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38
 À : Gilles Corlobé
 Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org
 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
 - RFC - (boundary=military)

 Gilles Corlobé writes:
 I propose to add a tag boundary=military

 Where is this tag currently being used?  Please point to several
 examples so we can see what you mean.
 This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here :
 http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--
 Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a
 high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and
 accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility).

 Before you propose a tag, you should be using it.
How??

He's proposing it's introduction for use!
If he's already using it then a proposal is pointless!!




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Joseph Reeves
 To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already
 existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you
 mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential.
 Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of
 the boundary is the military area?

+1

Perhaps also use a relation to tie various landuses together into a
military-base=name group or something similar.

If the OP doesn't like how nested landuse is rendered in a specific
renderer should they not file a bug with the maintainers of that
renderer? Seems better than adding to the db.

Joseph



2009/10/13 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk:

 On 13/10/2009, at 10.14, Gilles Corlobé wrote:

 Hello everybody,
 I propose to add a tag boundary=military : the problem is that,
 with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly
 lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking
 lot, …
 Rather than multiplying the military=* tag, I suggest to only mark
 the external limit of the military area.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_base

 Comments are welcomed on 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Military_base

 To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already
 existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you
 mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential.
 Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of
 the boundary is the military area?

 Cheers,
 Morten


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Dave F.
Pieren wrote:
 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
   
 I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval.
 It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--
 

 Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid
 advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and
 having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not.
 And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits.

   
+1

Always ask for advice  opinion if you're unsure of your suggestions.

The just go ahead  do it philosophy that some advocate just puts 
errors into OSM that may not get fully removed, especially if they've 
been around for a while  have been copied by others.

Cheers
Dave F.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread John Smith
2009/10/14 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
 Pieren wrote:
 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:

 I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval.
 It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz--


 Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid
 advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and
 having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not.
 And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits.


 +1

 Always ask for advice  opinion if you're unsure of your suggestions.

 The just go ahead  do it philosophy that some advocate just puts
 errors into OSM that may not get fully removed, especially if they've
 been around for a while  have been copied by others.

Technically they aren't errors, just inconsistent data that isn't
useful for anything unless someone cleans it up first, which takes a
lot more effort that could have been avoided in the first place with a
little planning. That's assuming you don't get people using the
same/similar tags to mean different things of course, in which case
you would have to manually clean up the data since a computer most
likely wouldn't understand the context nor how to express it to a
human.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Gilles Corlobé
 -Message d'origine-
 De : Joseph Reeves [mailto:iknowjos...@gmail.com]
 Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 00:07
 À : Morten Kjeldgaard
 Cc : Gilles Corlobé; talk@openstreetmap.org
 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
 - RFC - (boundary=military)
 
  To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already
  existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you
  mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like
 landuse=residential.
  Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of
  the boundary is the military area?
 
 +1
 
 Perhaps also use a relation to tie various landuses together into a
 military-base=name group or something similar.
 
 If the OP doesn't like how nested landuse is rendered in a specific
 renderer should they not file a bug with the maintainers of that
 renderer? Seems better than adding to the db.
 
 Joseph
In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for specificly
military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. 
Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I
don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can
it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential
area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary).
Gilles


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread John Smith
2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
 In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for specificly
 military activities, like those discribed in the wiki.
 Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I
 don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can
 it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential
 area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary).

The military have a training area near here:

http://osm.org/go/ueWPq0J

imho it should have 2 areas, one for the military training area and
one for the natural=wood that makes up the majority of the area:

http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8ll=-25.92146,152.938957spn=0.058514,0.111494t=hz=14

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread Gilles Corlobé
 -Message d'origine-
 De : John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
 Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 06:55
 À : Gilles Corlobé
 Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org
 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
 - RFC - (boundary=military)
 
 2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
  In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for
 specificly
  military activities, like those discribed in the wiki.
  Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same
 place. I
  don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day.
 How can
  it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The
 residential
  area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary).
 
 The military have a training area near here:
 
 http://osm.org/go/ueWPq0J
 
 imho it should have 2 areas, one for the military training area and
 one for the natural=wood that makes up the majority of the area:
 
 http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8ll=-
 25.92146,152.938957spn=0.058514,0.111494t=hz=14
You're right : If the area is covered by a forest (or a lake, or whatever),
it should appear like this on the map. What would a user think if he finds a
forest (even if it's in a military area) that is not on the map? 
And we should remerber that all users are not forbiden to enter into
military areas! Some users needs to know the exact nature of the area (to
know the size of a forest for example). 
Gilles  


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

2009-10-13 Thread John Smith
2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
 You're right : If the area is covered by a forest (or a lake, or whatever),
 it should appear like this on the map. What would a user think if he finds a
 forest (even if it's in a military area) that is not on the map?
 And we should remerber that all users are not forbiden to enter into
 military areas! Some users needs to know the exact nature of the area (to
 know the size of a forest for example).

I was just pointing out that there is a good reason to have 2
similar/same areas due to different land uses of the same land.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk