The tag military=bunker is used not only for true bunkers, but for "any
kind of military installation built to withstand an attack." - quote from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker
- Joseph Eisenberg
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:10 PM Bill Ricker wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Aug
Please join the rest of the OpenStreetMap U.S. community for Connect
2020 -- a free*, virtual event sharing cool ideas and celebrating our
community from October 29 to 31. Registration is open:
https://www.openstreetmap.us/connect2020/
This isn't quite a State of the Map U.S. We're trying
On Sep 1, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> 'Private' vs 'public' hits near the mark, but not in the gold. I was trying
> to be precise when I said that the property line determines the protected
> status and the public access constraints. A public-access nature reserve
> operated by an
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:14 PM stevea wrote:
> Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between
> "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be
> characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used
> for recreation, hiking and
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:42 PM Russell Nelson wrote:
> On 9/1/20 3:08 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> > Tourist Safety is dubiously best as most of the handrails and safety
> > lines are gone
> s/dubiously best/dubious at best/ ?
>
Russ is correct on the missing word !
Might be Auto-Carrot, i was
On 9/1/20 3:08 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
Tourist Safety is dubiously best as most of the handrails and safety
lines are gone
s/dubiously best/dubious at best/ ?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between
"cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be characterized
as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used for recreation,
hiking and similar human activities."
Joseph, many others in
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 19:55 stevea wrote:
> . And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should strive to tag this, I'm
> not exactly sure of the right mix of military=bunker and historic=yes
> flavors that might be absolutely correct, but something like those if not
> exactly those. Though
Vào lúc 06:17 2020-09-01, Matthew Woehlke đã viết:
On a related note: I use service=driveway (for lack of anything better)
for access ways to parking lots that don't have parking spaces (hence,
not service=parking_aisle). These are likely *not* public right-of-ways
(the lots themselves are
New Hampshire has a law requiring the town council of every town to hike
the perimeter of the town once every seven years. They can appoint an
agent to do it. I did one of these hikes, between Henniker and Weare.
There are markers along the way, which we re-painted, or otherwise
renewed.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:03 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal
> > privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land.
>
> I think I'm with Joseph here, we don't map cadastre stuff
>Protect area and National Park boundaries were supposed to be less difficult
>to confirm and more valid.
The NF administrative boundaries are basically impossible to verify
on-the-ground if that's the standard we are setting to demonstrate
verifiability. Typically, the only indication are the
OSM comprises data but data are produced and interpreted by fallible
humans. I would argue that OSM doesn't "simply say" anything, because the
act of defining tags is a subjective process negotiated between individuals
with different ideas about, for example, what a "viewpoint" is. It's not a
On 31/08/2020 15.56, Kevin Broderick wrote:
First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the
question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped
driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing,
because the tagging as added is based
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White
wrote:
> If you drive into a checkerboard
>> area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
>> limits of private land.
>>
>
> In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with
> small yellow property
Hi,
On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal
> privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land.
I think I'm with Joseph here, we don't map cadastre stuff also because
it makes no sense for us to become a copy
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:18 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> The OpenStreetMap community has long agreed that mapping cadastral parcels
> (land ownership) is not in scope. Protect area and National Park boundaries
> were supposed to be less difficult to confirm and more valid.
>
> But if what we are
The OpenStreetMap community has long agreed that mapping cadastral parcels
(land ownership) is not in scope. Protect area and National Park boundaries
were supposed to be less difficult to confirm and more valid.
But if what we are going to start mapping in the USA is simply the federal
ownership
31 Aug 2020, 05:38 by stevea...@softworkers.com:
> On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg
> wrote:
>
>> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to
>> be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to
>> be visiting sites that
19 matches
Mail list logo
