Hi Andrea, There is still an historic=monument.
Sorry, done. If I'm not mistaken, the proposal is to map an "oratorio" in the following > way: > amenity=community_centre > community_centre=parish_hall > denomination=catholic > religion=christian Ok I fixed The problem is that without a tagging plan we have to scan for features in > your OSM file to see if they are mapped correctly :-/ I tried to make it clearer, please review them. Why did you avoid "not residential" buildings? For example, the following building is still not correctly mapped (and it > is not the only one): > https://postimg.org/image/p3b4wmsgz/ yes but that was a problematic one: if I creat two building parts and a building feature that contains them, josm validator marks them as an error. (perhaps for the particular shape). I solved by erasing the lower part that surrounded the main building. (and it is not the only one) I checked again, I hope it's better now Anyway it seems the OSM file is in much better shape. Let's hope to finish > this review soon :-) thanks for your patience ;) bye 2018-02-16 18:16 GMT+01:00 Andrea Musuruane <musur...@gmail.com>: > Hi Giorgio, > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Giorgio Limonta < > giorgio.limont...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You wrongly tagged history=memorial features as historic=monument. >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument >>> >> > There is still an historic=monument. > > >> Please look at this recent thread on the talk-it ML about correctly >>> tagging an "oratorio" (e.g. the youth centre, not the church): >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2018-Febru >>> ary/062020.html >>> OK but I don't think bell towers are places of worship. Other opinions >>> are welcome. >> >> >> Done thanks >> > > If I'm not mistaken, the proposal is to map an "oratorio" in the following > way: > > amenity=community_centre > community_centre=parish_hall > denomination=catholic > religion=christian > > >> What is missing in your proposal is a good tagging plan (i.e. what tags >>> will be places on different features). Right now I have to look for >>> features and see if they are tagged correctly. >>> An (old) example is the following: >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sardegna/Import/Edificato#Tagging >> >> >> Yes my tagging plan it's very simple because the import information are >> poor. But I will improve the information after the import with a "classic" >> mapping approach ;) >> > > The problem is that without a tagging plan we have to scan for features in > your OSM file to see if they are mapped correctly :-/ > > >> About 3D buildings >>> There should be only one building tag on the outline. But you have two >>> building=* and there isn't one on the building outline. >>> Tags relevant for the complete building should be only on the building >>> outline (e.g. amenity=place_of_worship + religion=* + denomination=* + >>> name=*). >>> If you want to specify different height and roof on the various parts, >>> you must place a building:part tag on each of them. >>> Thus 2D renderers will ignore building:part tags but they will show the >>> overall building. >> >> >> You right, I (think) understand that and I fixed the "not residential" >> buildings >> > > Why did you avoid "not residential" buildings? > > For example, the following building is still not correctly mapped (and it > is not the only one): > https://postimg.org/image/p3b4wmsgz/ > > It should have two building:part tags one for each different section of > the house (now it only has one). > > >> It is wrong to have two POI's - one as a building and one as a node. >>> Anyway, I haven't understood how and when you will handle these >>> duplicate features. >>> BTW, what is wrong with the name "Teatro Olimpico"? You could tag the >>> feature with name="Teatro all'Antica" ("all'Antica" and not "All'Antica") >>> and alt_name=""Teatro Olimpico" (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki >>> /Teatro_all'Antica). >> >> >> Yes, done. >> > > You current OSM file has one duplicate node. You can find it with JOSM > validator. > > Anyway it seems the OSM file is in much better shape. Let's hope to finish > this review soon :-) > > Bye, > > Andrea > >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports