Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood
On 30/03/2013 01:46, André Pirard wrote: So, I have sent them an e-mail, I made the requested comment http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:OSM_Inspector/Views/Places on the appropriate discussion page I don't know why they've done it this way, but they've created a section within each wiki page itself entitled 'Discussion', and that's where they seem to want you to post your comments/requests - not the Talk page (confusingly called Discussion on the tab). So that would be here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Places#Discussion. Frederik Ramm (frede...@remote.org) and Jochen Topf (joc...@remote.org) sometimes post news about OSMI in OSM-Talk, so either that list, or those specific email addresses, might be another way to get their attention. -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
I don't know, they seems to be in pretty bad shape a lot worse than the ones depicted in the wiki. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 29/mar/2013 um 09:37 schrieb Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com: I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an attraction nor a shelter, From what the op wrote it seems these are shelters. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] informal helipads for emergency use
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: I think Richard's use of informal may be confusing. These places are not constructed to helipad standards. But they are designated in writing and shared between the local Fire Department/etc. and the medevac service. Something unverifiable on the ground. What you describe is just a contract between an organization and a landowner. And who will need this information excepted the organization and the landowner ? It's not because an information is available that it has to go into OSM. But I see a similar issue about informal car parks. In the countryside, you can park your car potentially everywhere when it's not forbidden. It is not a reason to tag such places with amenity=parking. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] informal helipads for emergency use
2013/3/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Something unverifiable on the ground. What you describe is just a contract between an organization and a landowner. well, a contract is in many circumstances verifiable. You could also see an actual helicopter land there in case of an emergency ;-) On the other hand, most of the boundaries we have in OSM are not more verifiable than this data. IMHO verifiable on the ground should be interpreted as verifiable, e.g. if a road has a certain name, but the signs on the spot have a spelling error: in this case the name of the osm element should be the actual name as verifiable in the city archives, and not the misspelled name on the sign (or put both variants in OSM, and a note, but do put the actual correctly spelled name as well, even if it doesn't result from on the ground survey). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] informal helipads for emergency use
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2013/3/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Something unverifiable on the ground. What you describe is just a contract between an organization and a landowner. well, a contract is in many circumstances verifiable. You could also see an actual helicopter land there in case of an emergency ;-) On the other hand, most of the boundaries we have in OSM are not more verifiable than this data. IMHO verifiable on the ground should be interpreted as verifiable, e.g. if a road has a certain name, but the signs on the spot have a spelling error: in this case the name of the osm element should be the actual name as verifiable in the city archives, and not the misspelled name on the sign (or put both variants in OSM, and a note, but do put the actual correctly spelled name as well, even if it doesn't result from on the ground survey). I agree with Martin here. I think that the broad notion of verifiability makes sense, but we've evolved that into a crisp line and treated the edge of that line as very meaningful. The LZ situation is not so different from streets that have names but for which the signs are missing. In my town many people (the subset that pay attention to police/fire/emergency_management) know where the LZs are, at least the more-used subset. The countryside car parking analogy here is that the Incident Commander might decide to use anyplace feasible for a medevac landing. So I agree that tagging might be used would be goofy. I have tagged some areas as parking when they are near trailheads and commonly used for parking - because I see it happening. But that's a long way from anyplace it's legal to leave a car. There's a larger issue, which isn't really about tagging, which is that this is an opportunity to grow the community. In my town, the public safety officials know the ham radio volunteers and the medical reserve corp volunteers. It's not a stretch to think of mappers as part of that community, ensuring that maps will be already up to date when something happens. This is in fact what Richard is doing. That can be existing mappers joining that local emergency planning community, or existing emergency management people getting into mapping, or both. That kind of community building is overwhelmingly more important than quibbling over the appropriateness of what will turn out in my town (of ~40 km^2) to be a half dozen nodes with tags that don't hit the normal render, in the middle of open spaces (that might have enclosing polygons of at least 0.5 ha, but not a lot of detail inside, because there isn't actually detail on the ground for the non-LZ use). If there are local stewards, we should let them do things that aren't clearly unreasonable locally. (I agree that it's reasonable to hold people making global- or regional-scale changes to a higher standard.) pgpmElptrV9mx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood
On 2013-03-30 10:42, Steve Doerr wrote : On 30/03/2013 01:46, André Pirard wrote: So, I have sent them an e-mail, I made the requested comment http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:OSM_Inspector/Views/Places on the appropriate discussion page I don't know why they've done it this way, but they've created a section within each wiki page itself entitled 'Discussion', and that's where they seem to want you to post your comments/requests - not the Talk page (confusingly called Discussion on the tab). So that would be here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Places#Discussion. Frederik Ramm (frede...@remote.org) and Jochen Topf (joc...@remote.org) sometimes post news about OSMI in OSM-Talk, so either that list, or those specific email addresses, might be another way to get their attention. Thanks Steve. I have written in the wrong Discussion a comment redirecting to the right Discussion in case it would be a good idea, I have moved my comment there and I'm cc:ing this to the said addresses. We shall overcome, thanks. Amitiés, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
