Here's how I'd address the concerns in this thread:
tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per
wiki
total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line,
regardless of how many parallel ways exist. This sounds more like a tag
appropriate for a rail
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per
wiki
total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line,
regardless of how many parallel ways exist. This sounds more like
On Aug 14, 2012 6:43 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com
wrote:
tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per
wiki
total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
A little bit of redundancy is fine if it makes the data significantly easier
to use, IMO.
Excepted that ITO map is interpreting the tag as it is documented. If
you zoom at the maximum [1], you will see that the
On 14/08/2012 11:13, David Fisher wrote:
Problem : if you check the data, you see that RM added the new tag but
did not revert his wrong interpretation of the old tracks.
Well, I'd see that as a side-issue, rather than a problem to be honest.
It was the only reason I initially contacted
On 14/08/2012 10:39, David Fisher wrote:
-- as RM also correctly points out, knowledge of the total number of
running tracks on a stretch of railway is useful for operational
reasons, as shown in the ITO map..
Actually the ITO map doesn't represent total numbers. It's representing
the wiki
On Aug 14, 2012 7:48 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com
wrote:
A little bit of redundancy is fine if it makes the data significantly
easier
to use, IMO.
Excepted that ITO map is interpreting the tag as it is documented.
I'm forwarding here the reply from Peter Miller, ITO World:
Personally I find the suggestion of total_tracks reasonably appealing
initially, however it would have to be repeated across all the tracks
which seems ugly and still doesn't say with
Well, ok, I probably didn't state that very clearly. My point was that the
ITO map is an example of the usefulness of counting the total number of
tracks, regardless of how the counting is actually achieved.
Also, my point about 'sniping' and 'mediation' was that the issue of an OSM
member not
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Pieren wrote:
Personally I find the suggestion of total_tracks reasonably appealing
initially, however it would have to be repeated across all the tracks
which seems ugly and still doesn't say with confidence which tracks
are connected.
The relation approach is clearer
On Aug 14, 2012 8:47 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm forwarding here the reply from Peter Miller, ITO World:
An automated approach would involve merging all close tracks and
figuring it out. Not trivial but quite computable in my view.
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
On 08/13/12 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, the FAO system seems quite elaborated (might be too
detailed/complicated/long for OSM, not sure,
Anything used for OSM must enable someone who knows shit about biology
and geology to make a meaningful
This is the formal RFC for the Conditional Restrictions proposal which
was already mentioned here last week.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions
Feel free to discuss the proposal on the talk page of the proposal.
Ole / polderrunner
13 matches
Mail list logo
