Hi André,
Am Samstag, 30. November 2013, 02:06:36 schrieb André Pirard:
You wrote that off must not be defined but grasped and it really
looks so.
You keep using the word wrong instead of showing what is right.
I told you both how off has to be interpreted and the reason why it has to be
In some places (for example Poland) there are available orthophotos covering
entire country, usable by OSM mappers. In USA there are probably maps made by
federal government and therefore available as public domain works.In most
places local governments have very detailed maps that may be
Tons of smaller polygons, city-sized megamultipolygons seems to sound like a
bad idea (and with small ones result gets drawbacks of both idea).
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:18:53 -0800 cracklinrainlt;cra_klinr...@gmx.degt;
wrote
The next thing is: How will you applicate such a tagging?
I agree the man_made tag is ludicrous, but we're stuck with that for the
time being, changing that is a whole other thread.
The two level tagging is what is currently defined for cameras that film
public spaces, I was just suggesting a new value of webcam etc and the
addition of a new key of
2013/11/29 nounours kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com
completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging!
why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common?
BUT:
1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should also
tag highways, restaurants
2013/11/30 bulwersator bulwersa...@zoho.com
Tons of smaller polygons, city-sized megamultipolygons seems to sound like
a bad idea (and with small ones result gets drawbacks of both idea).
+1, there is no real disadvantage in using lots of small polygons, but
there are a lot of advantages in
Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can we not have:
man_made=surveillance
surveillance:type=webcam
surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic.
url=http://
The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because
no matter what the intention of a webcam it
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/11/29 nounours kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com
completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging!
why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common?
BUT:
1) man_made does not make any sense for
I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the
personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more
creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it
goes and who has it.
It should be tagged accordingly.
Jonathan
On 29. nov. 2013 09:15, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no
mailto:pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no
I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do
not have huge problems with it as long as it is documented.
If something is
man_made is A tag for identifying man-made /(artificial)/ structures
added to the landscape. taken from the Wiki.
It's not just technical, and when you look at what is now included under
this bizarre heading: adit, clearcut, monitoring_station, pier,
snow_net, snow_fence, wastewater_plant,
For this discussion, it might be helpful to know what the Convention
on Road Signs and Signals says about the blue round cycle sign:
Sign D, 4 COMPULSORY CYCLE TRACK shall notify cyclists that the track
at the entrance to which it is placed is reserved for them, and shall notify
the drivers of
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:
Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the current
status-quo for the ways using at all times the ref unsigned_ref tags
(see I-394 example below).
I can't wait until we can finally kill this
Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need
anything more to tell its a webcam?
I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam.
Cheers,
Martin
Am 30.11.2013 um 21:25 schrieb Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:
Cyclists shall be required to use the track if the track is running along a
carriageway, footpath or track for riders on horseback and leading into the
same direction
Again a confirmation (and leading into the same
I agree, contact doesn't make sense.
webcam:url=http://... is better
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 30/11/2013 23:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we
You mean the cycle lane is only oneway and so bicycle=no on the road
stops bikes both way?
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 01/12/2013 00:15, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 um 21:25 schrieb Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:
Cyclists shall be required to use the track if the
On 11/30/2013 11:22 AM, Jonathan wrote:
I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the
personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more
creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it
goes and who has it.
It should be tagged
Dear all,
Based on your comments, I have created a new version of the proposal
for gambling features. The proposal can be found here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gambling
The main difference with the previous version is that a distinction is
now made between adult
If that's the case, then bicycle:(forward|backward)=no would also be
broken, which I'm not seeing in the proposal. As Mele can vouch for, I'm
probably OSM's strongest bicycling advocate, and I can't see a strong use
for adding another tag to a key on this one.
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 6:37 PM,
20 matches
Mail list logo
