Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: spaetz wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 7:50 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 07:25:12PM +0100, Tristan Scott wrote: surely width=0.254 given width is defined as being in metres? says who? I use meter as I live in continental Europe. But if I lived in the UK I would surely tag speelimits as maxspeed:mph=50 (or maxspeed=50mph) and not as some weird converted number. Fun if your Garmin tells you: the maximum speed here is 49.8789598 mph. If renderers couldn't cope (not that they care about maxspeed) I would consider it a fault of the renderer or of the preprocessor they are using to parse the planet file. wasn't the motto, tag the world as it is? well if speedlimit is 50mph, then it is 50 mph exactly I think we had this discussion before and came to the conclusion that: - 50mph was essentially mapping a sign, because the speed limit is a speed, not a unit, but it's quite understandable people doing it because that's what they see - that the tag without a unit should probably be assumed to be km/h. Especially as that's what map features has said for ages. Obviously if the tag has units you should use it or ignore the value if you don't understand it. - that anything intelligent enough to know if it wants to represent maxspeeds in mph/kph is intelligent enough to know it can safely round to the nearest integer. - and that it's possible to represent an exact mph in kph anyway if you can really be bothered: 1mile == 1.609344km exactly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
spaetz wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: - and that it's possible to represent an exact mph in kph anyway if you can really be bothered: 1mile == 1.609344km exactly Do you always carry your calculator with you when mapping or do you do it by hand :-) Slightly obscure point but I'd also add that the speed limit on UK dual carriageways is 70mph by statute, not 112.65408kph. Now I don't expect the UK Government is going to sneak in a stealth speed reduction by redefining a mile as 1.5km, but, well, I wouldn't put it past them. I was pleased to see someone yesterday take up the cudgels for one of my all-too-numerous hobby-horses: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2008-September/011602.html which is that a 'libosm' for client apps would be utterly wonderful, abstracting away all the workaday crap like downloads and invisibly converting units; it'd encourage client app development, remove the need for mappers to learn ever more and more, and give a bit of a respite to us hard-pressed editor authors (thereby letting us concentrate on important things like UI :) ). But as I'm not proposing to write it I shall hereby shut the f--- up. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think we had this discussion before and came to the conclusion that: - 50mph was essentially mapping a sign, because the speed limit is a speed, not a unit ... And as some applications might want to show the precise sign value, not some rounded appoximation (agreed that apps can round). Plus it's more intuitive for the mapper. - that the tag without a unit should probably be assumed to be km/h. that's why my example used maxspeed=50mph and maxspeedd:mph=50 in case you haven't noticed :-) - that anything intelligent enough to know if it wants to represent maxspeeds in mph/kph is intelligent enough to know it can safely round to the nearest integer. Anything being able to round to the next number should als be able to read miles (or have a clever enough preprocessor to do it :-)) - and that it's possible to represent an exact mph in kph anyway if you can really be bothered: 1mile == 1.609344km exactly Do you always carry your calculator with you when mapping or do you do it by hand :-) I am not saying that it shouldn't be tagged as a rounded km/h value. However, people shouldn't think they are forced to. If they feel that maxspeed:mph=50 makes more sense, than that should work too. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM, spaetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think we had this discussion before and came to the conclusion that: - 50mph was essentially mapping a sign, because the speed limit is a speed, not a unit ... And as some applications might want to show the precise sign value, not some rounded appoximation (agreed that apps can round). I've never seen a speed sign for anything but integer units. Given the accuracy of most speed measuring devices I'm guessing I never will either. People rarely set speed limits at anything other than divisions of 5 units be that mph or kph, unless the result is actually a conversion. ie: the speed limit in Windsor Great Park is signed as 38mph. So if I convert 112kph to mph, and round... the result is not an approximation, but the actual signed speed limit. This is one of those know your domain things. Plus it's more intuitive for the mapper. Agreed. - that the tag without a unit should probably be assumed to be km/h. that's why my example used maxspeed=50mph and maxspeedd:mph=50 in case you haven't noticed :-) - that anything intelligent enough to know if it wants to represent maxspeeds in mph/kph is intelligent enough to know it can safely round to the nearest integer. Anything being able to round to the next number should als be able to read miles (or have a clever enough preprocessor to do it :-)) - and that it's possible to represent an exact mph in kph anyway if you can really be bothered: 1mile == 1.609344km exactly Do you always carry your calculator with you when mapping or do you do it by hand :-) I am not saying that it shouldn't be tagged as a rounded km/h value. However, people shouldn't think they are forced to. If they feel that maxspeed:mph=50 makes more sense, than that should work too. I'm actually just summarising the mess that the last time this discussion came up, where I was actually arguing the mph case. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2007-September/002417.html About half of the arguments are a little weird, not least the whole rounding thing, which it turns out really isn't a problem in any sensible application. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: spaetz wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: - and that it's possible to represent an exact mph in kph anyway if you can really be bothered: 1mile == 1.609344km exactly Do you always carry your calculator with you when mapping or do you do it by hand :-) Slightly obscure point but I'd also add that the speed limit on UK dual carriageways is 70mph by statute, not 112.65408kph. Now I don't expect the UK Government is going to sneak in a stealth speed reduction by redefining a mile as 1.5km, but, well, I wouldn't put it past them. Well, quite probably given the official conversion is given as 112km/h. But anyway.. even if it is 70mph by statute, it turns out 112.65408km/h is exactly the same speed so it doesn't matter at all. ie: if I'm pulled over by a policeman and he says you were doing over 70mph a valid defence is not no, I was travelling at 120km/h so I can't have been. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM, spaetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think we had this discussion before and came to the conclusion that: - 50mph was essentially mapping a sign, because the speed limit is a speed, not a unit ... And as some applications might want to show the precise sign value, not some rounded appoximation (agreed that apps can round). I've never seen a speed sign for anything but integer units. Given the accuracy of most speed measuring devices I'm guessing I never will either. Here's one: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/5922d576/48b0f367 People rarely set speed limits at anything other than divisions of 5 units be that mph or kph, unless the result is actually a conversion. ie: the speed limit in Windsor Great Park is signed as 38mph. So if I convert 112kph to mph, and round... the result is not an approximation, but the actual signed speed limit. This is one of those know your domain things. Plus it's more intuitive for the mapper. Agreed. - that the tag without a unit should probably be assumed to be km/h. that's why my example used maxspeed=50mph and maxspeedd:mph=50 in case you haven't noticed :-) - that anything intelligent enough to know if it wants to represent maxspeeds in mph/kph is intelligent enough to know it can safely round to the nearest integer. Anything being able to round to the next number should als be able to read miles (or have a clever enough preprocessor to do it :-)) - and that it's possible to represent an exact mph in kph anyway if you can really be bothered: 1mile == 1.609344km exactly Do you always carry your calculator with you when mapping or do you do it by hand :-) I am not saying that it shouldn't be tagged as a rounded km/h value. However, people shouldn't think they are forced to. If they feel that maxspeed:mph=50 makes more sense, than that should work too. I'm actually just summarising the mess that the last time this discussion came up, where I was actually arguing the mph case. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2007-September/002417.html About half of the arguments are a little weird, not least the whole rounding thing, which it turns out really isn't a problem in any sensible application. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
80n wrote: Here's one: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/5922d576/48b0f367 I can beat that. There are signs on the canal in Market Harborough and Leicester proclaiming the speed limit to be 6.43km/h... you can guess why. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM, spaetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: I think we had this discussion before and came to the conclusion that: - 50mph was essentially mapping a sign, because the speed limit is a speed, not a unit ... And as some applications might want to show the precise sign value, not some rounded appoximation (agreed that apps can round). I've never seen a speed sign for anything but integer units. Given the accuracy of most speed measuring devices I'm guessing I never will either. Here's one: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/5922d576/48b0f367 Never assume anything about the sanity of a sign maker I guess :-( Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
Tristan Scott wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 3:37 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch This is a request for comments (my first, so let me know if i've done it wrong!) on my waterway/ditch. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Ditch mainly as there's a large area of marshes around where I live, and the canal waterway tag is completely inappropriate for the still overgrown drainage ditches (too wide to jump, too overgrown and narrow to navigate, and not even remotely canal-like) I can get organised with a picture of the ditch if that's necessary. Note that ditchs are occasionally slubbed out, but every ditch i know of is more than 50 years old - so it's not as if they're seasonal. oh, and they're on Ordnance Survey maps as thin blue lines, if that's relevant. Map Features has always had a waterway=drain tag which was always intended for drains and ditches. I've been using that when I come across one. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
the Waterway=Drain tag has this description: A Drain is an artificial waterway used for carrying storm water or industrial discharge. To me, that seems unrelated to the ditches I have in mind: they don't carry storm water - normally the water table won't move much in a storm (at least in the UK) and the ditches stay were they are. They contain natural rainwater or saltwater from the marshes. Secondly, they don't really drain so much as just sit there - the fields around stay wet, the water doesn't really move. They're used as fences as much as somewhere to connect field drains to. here's a pic that seems to illustrate what i have in mind: http://web.ncf.ca/bf250/images/odditch.jpg It strikes me that tagging as drain loses the information that drains are usually empty unless draining something (like a storm) and also tend to be channels for water movement rather than just sort of long thin ponds, though I suppose we must lose information somewhere to avoid tag congestion. Maybe modifying and clarifying the scope of the drain tag would do? Thoughts? Tristan 2008/9/1 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tristan Scott wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 3:37 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch This is a request for comments (my first, so let me know if i've done it wrong!) on my waterway/ditch. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Ditch mainly as there's a large area of marshes around where I live, and the canal waterway tag is completely inappropriate for the still overgrown drainage ditches (too wide to jump, too overgrown and narrow to navigate, and not even remotely canal-like) I can get organised with a picture of the ditch if that's necessary. Note that ditchs are occasionally slubbed out, but every ditch i know of is more than 50 years old - so it's not as if they're seasonal. oh, and they're on Ordnance Survey maps as thin blue lines, if that's relevant. Map Features has always had a waterway=drain tag which was always intended for drains and ditches. I've been using that when I come across one. Cheers Andy -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services 01603 858441 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
Just found a better image to illustrate a ditch: http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/esi/2001/CostaRica/palo_verde1/human-altered/images/ditch2.jpg Tristan 2008/9/1 Tristan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]: the Waterway=Drain tag has this description: A Drain is an artificial waterway used for carrying storm water or industrial discharge. To me, that seems unrelated to the ditches I have in mind: they don't carry storm water - normally the water table won't move much in a storm (at least in the UK) and the ditches stay were they are. They contain natural rainwater or saltwater from the marshes. Secondly, they don't really drain so much as just sit there - the fields around stay wet, the water doesn't really move. They're used as fences as much as somewhere to connect field drains to. here's a pic that seems to illustrate what i have in mind: http://web.ncf.ca/bf250/images/odditch.jpg It strikes me that tagging as drain loses the information that drains are usually empty unless draining something (like a storm) and also tend to be channels for water movement rather than just sort of long thin ponds, though I suppose we must lose information somewhere to avoid tag congestion. Maybe modifying and clarifying the scope of the drain tag would do? Thoughts? Tristan 2008/9/1 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tristan Scott wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 3:37 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch This is a request for comments (my first, so let me know if i've done it wrong!) on my waterway/ditch. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Ditch mainly as there's a large area of marshes around where I live, and the canal waterway tag is completely inappropriate for the still overgrown drainage ditches (too wide to jump, too overgrown and narrow to navigate, and not even remotely canal-like) I can get organised with a picture of the ditch if that's necessary. Note that ditchs are occasionally slubbed out, but every ditch i know of is more than 50 years old - so it's not as if they're seasonal. oh, and they're on Ordnance Survey maps as thin blue lines, if that's relevant. Map Features has always had a waterway=drain tag which was always intended for drains and ditches. I've been using that when I come across one. Cheers Andy -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services 01603 858441 07837 205829 -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services 01603 858441 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
Tristan Scott wrote: Maybe modifying and clarifying the scope of the drain tag would do? Yes, good idea. I'm thinking in particular of the Middle Level and the Witham Navigable Drains which drain the surrounding fenlands, a bit like the ones you're referring to (though much of the ML and WND would need to be augmented with boat=yes). These are generally referred to as 'drains', not ditches. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
Tristan Scott wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 4:43 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch the Waterway=Drain tag has this description: A Drain is an artificial waterway used for carrying storm water or industrial discharge. Don't read too much into the description, that was just one person's interpretation. ditches and drains all move groundwater, whether it run off the surface or migrates to them through land drains (the pipes that drain the fields). Ditch and drain could be interchangeable, I used drain in the original map features because the organisations that are responsible for most of them in the UK are called drainage boards. If water just sat there they would be of any use. In reality they do move water, just very slowly. Cheers Andy To me, that seems unrelated to the ditches I have in mind: they don't carry storm water - normally the water table won't move much in a storm (at least in the UK) and the ditches stay were they are. They contain natural rainwater or saltwater from the marshes. Secondly, they don't really drain so much as just sit there - the fields around stay wet, the water doesn't really move. They're used as fences as much as somewhere to connect field drains to. here's a pic that seems to illustrate what i have in mind: http://web.ncf.ca/bf250/images/odditch.jpg It strikes me that tagging as drain loses the information that drains are usually empty unless draining something (like a storm) and also tend to be channels for water movement rather than just sort of long thin ponds, though I suppose we must lose information somewhere to avoid tag congestion. Maybe modifying and clarifying the scope of the drain tag would do? Thoughts? Tristan 2008/9/1 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tristan Scott wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 3:37 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch This is a request for comments (my first, so let me know if i've done it wrong!) on my waterway/ditch. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Ditch mainly as there's a large area of marshes around where I live, and the canal waterway tag is completely inappropriate for the still overgrown drainage ditches (too wide to jump, too overgrown and narrow to navigate, and not even remotely canal-like) I can get organised with a picture of the ditch if that's necessary. Note that ditchs are occasionally slubbed out, but every ditch i know of is more than 50 years old - so it's not as if they're seasonal. oh, and they're on Ordnance Survey maps as thin blue lines, if that's relevant. Map Features has always had a waterway=drain tag which was always intended for drains and ditches. I've been using that when I come across one. Cheers Andy -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services 01603 858441 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1644 - Release Date: 31/08/2008 4:59 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:07:32PM +, Chris Hill wrote: I think that a ditch is something I could just about jump over (maybe in my younger days anyway), whereas a drain is wider and possibly navigable. Then use width=10inch or whatever :-O ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
surely width=0.254 given width is defined as being in metres? I've been doing UK speed limits in km/h hoping they'll be marked in mph when the map is drawn (or when i render). Tristan 2008/9/1 spaetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:07:32PM +, Chris Hill wrote: I think that a ditch is something I could just about jump over (maybe in my younger days anyway), whereas a drain is wider and possibly navigable. Then use width=10inch or whatever :-O ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tristan Scott BSc(Hons) Yare Valley Technical Services 01603 858441 07837 205829 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 07:25:12PM +0100, Tristan Scott wrote: surely width=0.254 given width is defined as being in metres? says who? I use meter as I live in continental Europe. But if I lived in the UK I would surely tag speelimits as maxspeed:mph=50 (or maxspeed=50mph) and not as some weird converted number. Fun if your Garmin tells you: the maximum speed here is 49.8789598 mph. If renderers couldn't cope (not that they care about maxspeed) I would consider it a fault of the renderer or of the preprocessor they are using to parse the planet file. wasn't the motto, tag the world as it is? well if speedlimit is 50mph, then it is 50 mph ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
Tristan Scott wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 7:25 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch surely width=0.254 given width is defined as being in metres? I've been doing UK speed limits in km/h hoping they'll be marked in mph when the map is drawn (or when i render). Don't assume anything ;-) Best guarantee is to include the unit on the value or as a separate key. Then there can be no confusion. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
Lance Dyas wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 8:09 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch spaetz wrote: On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:07:32PM +, Chris Hill wrote: I think that a ditch is something I could just about jump over (maybe in my younger days anyway), whereas a drain is wider and possibly navigable. Then use width=10inch or whatever :-O heh .. I think a drain has fluid in it a ditch might not.. we called the edges train tracks ditches. Note I am typing with a midwest American accent.. not an english one. yeah, and when it rains heavily on that railroad, guess what happens to the ditch ;-) Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
spaetz wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 7:50 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 07:25:12PM +0100, Tristan Scott wrote: surely width=0.254 given width is defined as being in metres? says who? I use meter as I live in continental Europe. But if I lived in the UK I would surely tag speelimits as maxspeed:mph=50 (or maxspeed=50mph) and not as some weird converted number. Fun if your Garmin tells you: the maximum speed here is 49.8789598 mph. If renderers couldn't cope (not that they care about maxspeed) I would consider it a fault of the renderer or of the preprocessor they are using to parse the planet file. wasn't the motto, tag the world as it is? well if speedlimit is 50mph, then it is 50 mph exactly Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch
Chris Hill wrote: Sent: 01 September 2008 6:08 PM To: Tristan Scott; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - waterways/ditch Maybe modifying and clarifying the scope of the drain tag would do? Thoughts? I think that a ditch is something I could just about jump over (maybe in my younger days anyway), whereas a drain is wider and possibly navigable. You are still describing the same thing though, only the width has changed. So you don't need an extra key to define the object, just add a key(s) to define the physical attributes, in this case perhaps a width= tag Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
