Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

I'm learning that people's reluctance to tag things subjectively is because they have learnt the hard way that this just leads to arguments. Maybe the mountain should be given the name of the park, since that's what the locals refer to it as, with the actual name of the mountain as an alternative

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

2009/6/4 Stephan Plepelits sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at: Hi Folks! I'm the one who originally created the proposal. On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:52:33PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Hmmm... I guess the main problem that people have is that a tag like importance (or its synonyms) is

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

Place of Worships: Cathedral amenity=place_of_worship importance=regional/national Church amenity=place_of_worship importance=urban Chapel amenity=place_of_worship importance=suburban You can use some tag object_size, where you specify size of the object: Catherdal

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

Hi, MP wrote: You can use some tag object_size, where you specify size of the object: Catherdalamenity=place_of_worship object_size=100m Church amenity=place_of_worship object_size=30m Chapel amenity=place_of_worship object_size=8m What do you mean by size, given that

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 02:49:53PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: PS: The same importance thing pops up with regard to towns and villages - a town in rural England may have more map significance than one of the dozens of cities that surround Paris. By the way ... the first thoughts about this

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

Hmmm... I guess the main problem that people have is that a tag like importance (or its synonyms) is inherently subjective and a subjective tag is hard to determine on the ground. Given the recent discussions about unofficial cycle routes and the secondary roads in Ipswich, people seem to be just

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

Hi Folks! I'm the one who originally created the proposal. On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:52:33PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Hmmm... I guess the main problem that people have is that a tag like importance (or its synonyms) is inherently subjective and a subjective tag is Yeah, I see that

[OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

Hello all, I've wondered what the Feature's popularity field was for in Google Map Maker and I think I've found a use case for it. Please check this OSM view out: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.14189lon=121.02199zoom=17layers=B000FTF. It shows Mt. Sungay as a prominent label and this

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Any comments? Important to who? -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] How do we specify relative importance of features across all types of features?

2009/6/2 Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com: 2009/6/2 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es El Martes, 2 de Junio de 2009, Jonathan Bennett escribió: Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Any comments? Important to who? And important for what? Well, if you are drawing a map then you want to know