On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2010 01:24, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote:
Those calling for shop=fish rather than shop=fishmonger - what would you use
for
the pet fish shop?
How many pet shops would there be that
On 5 May 2010 17:16, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near
me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like
shop=fish.
I haven't seen any pet shops that only sell fish, but as for shops
selling equipment
Am 05.05.2010 06:17, schrieb John F. Eldredge:
Yes, that is the origin of the term. However, usage of words shifts over
time, often into multiple meanings, depending upon context. From what I have
heard, a coffeehouse in Amsterdam, Holland, now means a place that sells
marijuana, not one
Am 05.05.2010 07:47, schrieb Roy Wallace:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2010 18:14, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
1) allow for the specification of more than one type simultaneously,
e.g. amenity=A;B, amenity=B;C, etc., or
2)
On 5 May 2010 18:30, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
BTW: The flowchart is using highly subjective language
heavily-advertised pseudo-food which is *very* certainly not a good
way to find a concensus. Why does it try to offence junk food fans? Oh,
and the definition of pseudo
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near
me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like
shop=fish.
Personally, I don't really like the idea of a myriad distinct shop=*
tags
On 05/05/2010 10:24, John Smith wrote:
It's a cascade problem...
what is it... a shop
what sort of shop... fish shop...
what does it sell...
what is it... a shop
what sort of shop... pet shop...
what sorts of pets...
Either way you look at it, shop is the base unit, followed by what
On 5 May 2010 20:27, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
To be consistent, your example above should really be:
what is it... a shop
what sort of shop... food shop...
what sort of food...
can't get much more generic than that...
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
To be consistent, your example above should really be:
what is it... a shop
what sort of shop... food shop...
what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs
cooking/preparing
___
On 5 May 2010 22:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs
cooking/preparing
He's talking about this sort of thing:
shop=food
food:ocean_fish=yes
food:shellfish=yes
I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was
wondering if it was OK do to things like:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that
way instead.
* Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really
parks (adding a
2010/5/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 5 May 2010 22:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs
cooking/preparing
He's talking about this sort of thing:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to
that
way instead.
Is there a good reason you want to reduce information?
Yes, as
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to
that
way instead.
Is there a good
On 5/5/10 9:12 AM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a
good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and
cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It
avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. It
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
* Remove cycleways parallel
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was
wondering if it was OK do to things like:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that
way instead.
no, you should rather do the opposite: remove the
cleway into the highway).
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then
draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
Well, not exactly, I draw only when I survey them on the ground,
therefore I know how they are connected with each other. And for
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then
draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the
inevitable...
A bad
On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park.
This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as
landuse, the only landuse=grass I can think of is turf farms,
surface=grass is more
A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as
fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just
leave lots of useless areas...
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
Wouldn't it be smart to tag it as fixme for surveying on the ground,
and by
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should
then
draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
That's where
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as
fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would
just
leave lots of useless areas...
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
2010/5/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park.
This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as
landuse, the only landuse=grass I
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For
instance;
use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not wrong regarding landuse-use ;-) in general.
cheers,
Martin
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For
instance;
use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not
On 6 May 2010 00:12, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course I have been surveying on the ground :) Same street as in the
streetview link but from my own camera:
http://swimmer.se/not_a_park.jpg
surface=pavers ?
Although you are also welcome to map individual trees :D
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? :9
Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it is
a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying
over it.
I must admit I
On 6 May 2010 01:06, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, but what do you do if all those functions are primary? Sometimes
this is the case.
Multiple POIs... or one node with multiple relations...
___
Tagging mailing list
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should
then
draw
OK, I think I'm beginning to understand the lay of the land.
What I most wanted to get acknowledged is that data gathered first hand on
street level should trump data traced from low-res satellite images.
I will not remove any walkways or cycleways that are adjacent to other ways.
I will align
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of
time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can
be
walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
would
If the sidewalks are next to the road, and in Europe, you can probably
rely on people assuming them by default (unless you advise otherwise).
Clearly in other places, it may be necessary to tag them explicitly.
Richard
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote:
On Wed,
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to
be consensus on that.
I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and
I'll even go so far to say it is wrong if they are not connected). The
open question is whether
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:49 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to
be consensus on that.
I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and
I'll even
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
Well since we need space for all those thousands of sidewalks that people
want to add maybe we better leave space around all roads anyway :)
IMHO the sidewalk (and the street) are not part of the adjacent
landuses anyway. I thought you were asking for
Please feel free to view and comment on this proposal for shop:seafood
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/seafood_shop
Claudius
Am 05.05.2010 15:09, Peteris Krisjanis:
While discussing this, can we create proposal page for shop=seafood?
Hi,
Just wondering when the use of : of . is most appropriate with regard to
namespace tags in mind. Some examples like this tree:height=20m or
shop.restaurant.parking=yes is what I mean.
Is the : de-facto the namespace divider of choice or does the . come into
view for some reasons
2010/5/5 ivom ivo.vdmaagdenb...@pandora.be:
Just wondering when the use of : of . is most appropriate with regard to
namespace tags in mind. Some examples like this tree:height=20m or
shop.restaurant.parking=yes is what I mean.
Is the : de-facto the namespace divider of choice or does the .
At 2010-05-05 08:55, Pieren wrote:
...Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be
walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed,
imo. Say where things are missing, not where
Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace:
There's only room for grey (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want
there to be.
Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion.
I think I do understand your point, though, that you think it better
to keep using these
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace:
There's only room for grey (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want
there to be.
Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion.
Ok. Though I
On 6 May 2010 06:12, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this
case - certainly better than multiple POIs, and no less supported
than multiple relations (right?)
If an app supports relations, it wouldn't matter if there is 1 or
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com writes:
Ok, I'll give up. But I will just point out that, while you insist it
is just asking for trouble, imagine a wiki page that says something
like:
If you're not sure whether the place should be tagged as an
amenity=restaurant, cafe or fast_food, this
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:41 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 May 2010 06:12, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this
case - certainly better than multiple POIs, and no less supported
than multiple relations
+1. Micromapping may be on the rise, but that doesn't mean it's
necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying,
on
administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by
contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2,
maxspeed=25
mph,
On 6 May 2010 11:24, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large
for the value general. what are people typically using?
shop=department_store seems to fit to me:
A single large store - often multiple storeys high -
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
by discount store, i mean the largish stores like WalMart, Target, K
Mart, etc.
they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large
for the value general. what are people typically using?
I
On 6 May 2010 11:59, Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Though, many Targets and Super Walmarts have large grocery sections, so they
could also get shop=supermarket, and there might be a McDonalds, Pizza Hut
or Taco Bell Express, and other things. Thus, we have the issue with how to
49 matches
Mail list logo
