On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems
a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground
I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water.
On 3 May 2015 at 15:27, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the
'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather
than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no
answer.
I'm
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 17:43 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is
you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the
category?
Do you mean when using the proposed camp_site= tag Ian ? No, no scope
or need for
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and
the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware
of.
Agreed.
___
Talk-au
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
It could be compared to using highway=.
Yes, and highway is terrible ;-)
Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it
is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously
Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that
the data is usable.
Agreed that we should map in such a way that makes the data most usable. I
think raw data is more usable for app designers. You seem to think
composite tags with fuzzy definitions are more usable. I
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent
composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + power). Over
time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g.
how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another
bloody
On 3 May 2015 at 10:22, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either
all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And
imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database.
The proposed
On 3/05/2015 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
I can't see any reason why this responsibility should be given to the
mapper. The corresponding categories may be better held in a software
ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite
that they are aware of.
Mappers take
On 3/05/2015 10:22 AM, David Bannon wrote:
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that
represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower +
Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that
represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower +
Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to
look closely at the problem from a
Hi Folks, as some of you are possibly not subscribed to the tagging
mailing list, thought I'd point out a proposal under way.
Its about a rough classification of camp sites in an ordered way. With
the intention of making them a bit easier to render or search for.
Hi,
My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a
very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground
I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water.
It would probably be worthwhile making a call on the classification that
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Hi,
My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water
seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of
campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable
water.
Thanks Ian. The
14 matches
Mail list logo
