On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
> I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread.
>
> There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are
> free to use *any* tags they like.
...
> Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> > Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g.
> there
> > is this sentence: "Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
> > becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Chris Hill wrote:
> Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any
> why it is better but don't use a phoney voting process ignored by the vast
> majority as a mandate for action.
Voting is a valuable process. Discussions, while valuabl
Amanda,
This would be the right place to discuss tagging-related topics like
the one you're raising.
Let me start by saying that it is not straightforward at all to just
change an established convention: not only would we need to change
every occurence of this tag in the database, we'd also need
On 19/02/12 11:56, Werner Hoch wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett:
The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a
meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do
is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct p
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Amanda wrote:
> hello!
> new here. don't know if it's the right place to address this issue, sorry if
> i'm mistaken..
> my suggestion is: MAN MADE should be called HUMAN MADE
I think in this context, the reference to MAN is referring to the
human individual as re
The place is right, but:
Why?
What good would that change bring?
Lukáš Matějka (LM_1)
2012/2/19 Amanda :
> hello!
>
> new here. don't know if it's the right place to address this issue, sorry if
> i'm mistaken..
>
> my suggestion is: MAN MADE should be called HUMAN MADE
>
> _
On 19 Feb 2012, at 14:34, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> waterway=riverbank is an alternative way of mapping a waterway=river,
> and can coexist with it.
+1, they are actually an additional way of tagging the extent.
I still remain of the opinion that a river starts at its spring, independent o
hello!
new here. don't know if it's the right place to address this issue, sorry
if i'm mistaken..
my suggestion is: MAN MADE should be called HUMAN MADE
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> The wiki says: "For narrow rivers which will be rendered as a line.
> For larger rivers see waterway=riverbank. For really small rivers and
> streams, see waterway=stream." This is ambiguous (reads as if
> waterway=river isn't appropr
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett:
> The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a
> meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do
> is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct people to
> this one.
As soon as th
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g. there
> is this sentence: "Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
> becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g.
> river)."
> Well, almost a
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:12 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> > Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should
> > try to reduce the different types one by one.
>
> Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly to
Am 19. Februar 2012 12:16 schrieb Steve Bennett :
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> Well, almost all rivers start small and become bigger ;-), but despite
>> being small, don't they already start as rivers at their spring?
>
> No, because the OSM definition of 'ri
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:07:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route +
> route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be
> route=road)
Oh, and I see also type=address... meh :)
Seems like we'll need some tim
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g. there
> is this sentence: "Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
> becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g.
> river)."
> Well, almost all rive
Am 19. Februar 2012 10:47 schrieb Werner Hoch :
> Hi all,
>
> the relation type=waterway proposal was written long times ago but never
> formally approved:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway
>
> The relation is widely used as you can see in statistics:
> http://wiki.op
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> > > the relation type page:
> > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
> > >
> > > lists the related
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> > the relation type page:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
> >
> > lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet.
> >
> > Are
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> Hi there,
Hello,
> the relation type page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
>
> lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet.
>
> Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the related
Hi there,
the relation type page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet.
Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into
associatedStreet relations?
Often there could be merge several r
Hi all,
the relation type=waterway proposal was written long times ago but never
formally approved:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway
The relation is widely used as you can see in statistics:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway#Tools
It wou
22 matches
Mail list logo
