Yes please!
I was also thinking on the lines of documenting implicit tagging:
*to save mappers time
*to save space in the database
*to avoid confusion
*to allow a single point of maintenance
At a generic territory level with some kind of hierarchy please, so
for example cities
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
You sure know how to lower the barriers to entry and attract new mappers...
Every application using OSM data has to make assumptions about data
not present in the database, sure, but reliable data has
I think Frederik describes the problem very well here:
http://osm.gryph.de/2012/02/freedom-to-tag and I really like the Tag
Central idea, but as usual it requires that somebody with the right skills
and available time falls in love with the idea. It is probably too late
now, but it might have been
Am 13.04.2012 08:20, schrieb Peter Wendorff:
If we would define a set of defaults and mappers follow that set, nobody
will add default values again, and it's not possible to distinguish
between default and unknown any more.
You have identified a real problem: The distinction between default
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
What would you do with this page? Enhance/complete it, or delete it?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
Just noticed that links to a proposal for defaults -
I think we're talking about two different things here.
(a) An editor (program) automatically applying tags to an object. This
is bad, because we don't know whether the mapper has specifically
verified this, or whether it's just being assumed and may be false.
(b) Tags on an area that specify
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Just noticed that links to a proposal for defaults -
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Defaults
An example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/934933
Data consumers should check if the
Le 13/04/2012 09:49, Nathan Edgars II a écrit :
I think we're talking about two different things here.
(a) An editor (program) automatically applying tags to an object. This
is bad, because we don't know whether the mapper has specifically
verified this, or whether it's just being assumed and
Am 13.04.2012 08:55, schrieb Colin Smale:
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
You sure know how to lower the barriers to entry and attract new
mappers...
Not exactly, but a big catalogue of explicit defaults IMHO does not make
anything
Am 13.04.2012 09:31, schrieb Colin Smale:
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
What would you do with this page? Enhance/complete it, or delete it?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
Just
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, whoever really wants to introduce this distinction is going to
have to find another way, perhaps surface=cobblestone,
cobblestone=sett.
Thank you for dealing with the issue.
Subtagging seems like a good suggestion for making this distinction. We
would also need a
Am 12. April 2012 00:31 schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Clearly the change that was made was disruptive and changes the
meaning of the 80,000 or so surface=cobblestone tags already in
existence. I have thus changed the definition back and commented out
surface=sett for the moment.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
not so sure about this. Currently there is really a lot of values in
surface but (as far as I know) none of them gets subtagged. Instead of
subtagging we could also keep cobblestone for sett and invent
another
13 matches
Mail list logo
