Re: [Tagging] Mechanical Edit: fix japanese train stations wikipedia/names fields
Am 14.10.2012 18:09, schrieb Fabien SK: - I create an OSM account for this task highly appreciated. And discussing it with the Japanese community as already mentioned is a very good idea. Best regards, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges
On 31.01.2013 12:06, Martin Vonwald wrote: I'm looking for some alternatives to map tunnels and bridges that contain several ways. I'm not really happy with the proposed relation -1 The current method is used and well established since years and for my point of view works fine. So I clearly dislike to change it. Just my 2 cents, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Multiple amenities inside shared area
on 28.01.2014 12:28, Janko Mihelić wrote: because it's not a common problem. ??? there are e.g. a lot of shopping centers out there... Best regards, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] wikidata instead of wikipedia
Am 22.02.2014 00:32, schrieb ueliw0: with wikidata now operational, I was wondering if it would make sense to use (tag) wikidata items instead of the wikipedia links. for me wikipedia still makes sense: I think that there is not a wikidata page/ID available for every article. And: article names are easy to understand, cryptic IDs aren't... Best regards, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types
On 03.07.2014 21:55, Fernando Trebien wrote: Is there anyone routing over runways today? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_Airport;-) Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
Am 15.07.2014 17:58, schrieb Pieren: I discover that OSM contains 1575 relations of type=network (taginfo). I guess its definition is coming from this wiki proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network As a hint for further inverstigations: I guess this might be public transportation related Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis: In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relation is used to group together all nodes and routes of a walking network. relations are NO CATEGORIES in OSM, that's agreed since years! Please delete these relations. BTW: it's not possible to keep such a relation up to date if it has a reasonable amount of objects = any new node or way of the network has to be included. But e.g. I didn't know about that relation = I wouldn't include a new node or way = would be missing. So I don't see any chance to have all objects within a relation. = another argument against a relation used as category. Best regards, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
On 16.07.2014 13:31, John Packer wrote: but not without adding the appropriate tags to it's members of course! I never wanted something different. Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag for livestocks pens
Am 01.09.2014 12:20, schrieb Severin Menard: How should we map the livestock pens in farmyards? barrier = fence And (IMHO): it should be a permanet installation and no temporary thing... Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's the difference in these tags?
Am 15.09.2014 13:26, schrieb Dave F.: oneway=yes to access:backward=no oneway=yes is used sinde 10 years, IMHO there is no reason for a change! just my 2 cents, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
On 26.10.2014 17:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes. but if you - for whatever reason ever - can't map it as area then it's better to map it as node instead not mapping it at all... Just an example: I did it some times ago with something (can't remember what ist was, at least not a bay but maybe an amenity). And IIRC it was simply due to missing time at this edit. To be honest: I returned to work on this region some weeks later and changed the node to an area. So of course an area is usually better than a node. Just my 2 cents, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
On 30.10.2014 12:51, Richard Z. wrote: their definition of gulf of mexico is obviously not compatible with our definition of bay IMHO: this has some similarities to definition of regions like the Alps or the Rocky Mountains... Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68
Am 23.12.2014 um 11:36 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Ulrich, please modify the subject line to something that describes the topic when writing to the list. I even would ask NOT AT ALL to comment on digests but on the individual posts. Reason: commenting on digests destroys the comment linking = no discussion tree. BTW: I could point to http://learn.to/quote (https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html) Merry Christmas, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey
Am 23.12.2014 um 17:37 schrieb Rainer Fügenstein: what is needed here is some tag, saying don't touch these coordinates, they've been surveyed with high(est) accuracy. maybe just add a note to the pipeline (note = maped mit GPS with guaranteed accuracy of blahblah). Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Cluster
Am 15.01.2015 um 02:02 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: This is for grouping features that are more or less of the same kind. See examples. No, this is not the same as a site relation. I for myself would put all related objects inside a multipart relation and add the attributes (key/values) to that relation. For my understanding that's at least one thing what multipart relations are for... (except for e.g. making holes into areas) Just my 2 cents, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property
Am 02.01.2015 um 07:33 schrieb Megha Shrestha: Do we tag the whole area as owner =* ??? Oh no, please try to avoid this!!! We collect GEO-FACTS in OSM and are no land title register. Please also try to take care of privacy concerns. And think about that the fact needs to be checkable easily by anybody. Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
