Hi Alv,
I'm sorry this particular point disappoint you and be such a disagreement
reason.
Our views aren't the same regarding power line model and they do have been
well explained on wiki and on this mailing list (and on the gravitystorm's
github indeed).
JOSM already asking you a voltage=* tag
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
The combination of tracktype, surface and smoothness could fit the bill.
You cannot expect that any renderer will be able to display all
possible combinations of these three keys and dozen values. Or you map
is unreadable.
On Wednesday 09 July 2014, Daniel Koć wrote:
[...] It's just my beginnings there, so
I'll wait some time before saying anything conclusive, but for now
I'm very surprised how the low hanging fruit can be not picked for so
long without anybody noticing it, even if all the code is already
Thanks for starting this discussion. Personally I think it makes sense
to define different types of peaks in the data. It would solve the
problem we have now, where tiny hillocks are rendered just like huge
mountains.
On 8 July 2014 15:14, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
The
Wayside shrines and crosses are quite common here in Austria, and probably
in other parts of Europe too. They are mounted on posts (or pillars,
walls...) made of various materials (wood, stone...), or on trees. When
mounted on trees, I use a tag combination of historic=wayside_cross (or
_shrine)
On 9 July 2014 00:05, Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl wrote:
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:04, yvecai napisał(a):
However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of
rendering examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the
You don't even realize how sad is this observation for
On 9 July 2014 02:56, Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl wrote:
but for now I'm very surprised how the
low hanging fruit can be not picked for so long without anybody noticing it,
even if all the code is already waiting to be merged (
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/705
W dniu 09.07.2014 13:39, Christoph Hormann napisał(a):
I can very much relate to that but this is not a matter that can be
resolved easily. Everyone has things he/she likes to change in the
Of course, but even open projects are not completely disconnected and we
can try to find a good
On Jul 9, 2014, at 2:07 AM, François Lacombe wrote:
JOSM already asking you a voltage=* tag on any power=* object.
Which I, as a mapper more interested in roads and trails, ignore as I don't
know what to put there and I'd rather have nothing than something that is wrong.
Many of the
W dniu 09.07.2014 14:01, Matthijs Melissen napisał(a):
I think it's best to think of it as a two step process: first propose
the tags that describe the reality (here), then propose how they
should be rendered (on the openstreetmap-carto Github).
Well, as I said: in my proposition I did
Hi,
Please let me clarify how to be tagged toilets for ostomate/stoma
equipment is settled.
Here in Japan, some public toilets have such a equipment.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AA%E3%82%B9%E3%83%88%E3%83%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88
I think it is better to be tagged like wheelchair =[yes|no]
I made some changes to the page Key:wikipedia on the wiki.
Please review:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Awikipediadiff=1060207oldid=1041603
2014-07-01 19:58 GMT-03:00 Jo winfi...@gmail.com:
I've been experimenting with Wikidata a bit. I'm not a Wikipedian, rather
a
2014-07-09 16:37 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com:
I made some changes to the page Key:wikipedia on the wiki.
Please review:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Awikipediadiff=1060207oldid=1041603
your edit looks fine to me, besides that you removed the url
2014-07-09 15:40 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com:
Which I, as a mapper more interested in roads and trails, ignore as I
don't know what to put there and I'd rather have nothing than something
that is wrong.
You're absolutely right.
JOSM ask for voltage to encourage users to look
I removed the link to the key url=* because it's own wiki page advises it
shouldn't be used, so I figured there was no need to link it here.
As far as I understood, although it might make sense to tag an URL in some
cases, the meaning of this key is too generic, making it hard to be used by
2014-07-09 13:39 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
In general a good tagging scheme should stand alone and not be designed
specifically for a certain rendering. To this aim it is quite good not
to have a too close connection between tagging and rendering.
+1. These are
On Wednesday 09 July 2014, Daniel Koć wrote:
My opinion is that the best approach would be to establish better
means for people to create variants of the style and present them
to a broad audicence. This would have two effects - first it would
allow changes
That would be awesome!
2014-07-09 16:57 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com:
I removed the link to the key url=* because it's own wiki page advises it
shouldn't be used, so I figured there was no need to link it here.
Thanks for pointing at this, I have amended this sentence to make more
sense, please
We get increasing feedbacks on my local list that the new rendering
rule is counter-intuitive (to not say that it is considered as a bug).
Now roads are rendered on top of buildings even when roads are really
under buildings or underground (tunnels). Why not when your primary
interest is for
On 9 July 2014 16:29, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
We get increasing feedbacks on my local list that the new rendering
rule is counter-intuitive (to not say that it is considered as a bug).
Now roads are rendered on top of buildings even when roads are really
under buildings or underground
2014-07-09 17:24 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
I think shop=* key should be always rendered - HOT has nice basket icon
for that. What makes some types of shops better than the others?
the idea to use a whitelist is to avoid rendering objects with syntax
errors in the tags,
Am 09.07.2014 17:29, schrieb Pieren:
We get increasing feedbacks on my local list that the new rendering
rule is counter-intuitive (to not say that it is considered as a bug).
Now roads are rendered on top of buildings even when roads are really
under buildings or underground (tunnels). Why
On 9 July 2014 16:57, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
the idea to use a whitelist is to avoid rendering objects with syntax errors
in the tags, because this gives the mappers feedback that there is indeed a
problem if something is not rendered...
That said, we are planning to
MapQuest Open seems to have a good compromise in this case--the tunnel is
rendered above the buildings, but is partly transparent (to allow the user
to see other features) and has more prominent dashed casing (to indicate it
is below-ground).
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Matthijs Melissen
W dniu 09.07.2014 16:56, Christoph Hormann napisał(a):
This would still require significant additional ressources including
the
workload of managing two separate styles. I don't think testing is the
In my vision testing would be not very much different, but include all
the standard tags we
W dniu 09.07.2014 17:01, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
+1. These are really two different aspects, because the tagging has
the aim to give a short, detailed, precise, specific description of
something (and so allows distinction from something different).
And then sometimes you end up with
2014-07-09 18:51 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
And then sometimes you end up with rendering problem because of lack of
enough distinction in the tagging (they are by your definition not what
they really should be), and what than? I would get back to tagging studio
and think if
On 09/07/2014 16:39, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 9 July 2014 16:24, Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl wrote:
W dniu 09.07.2014 14:19, Matthijs Melissen napisał(a):
So - what about making the testing map and adding there all the already
documented features for the start? Maybe we should discuss it
2014-07-09 18:24 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
You will always fall in the trap of localities when working on a global
level, there's no escape - sorry... And which mapper? Our polish team wants
to go mapping to Kazakhstan and what they see as under-track by our
standards is the
I suppose you were in contact with Lutz. Our policy is to render what's
mapped and in that be quick to market. If there's a tagging found
sufficiently often it is considered for inclusion in the historic map.
The wiki page map features describes what kind of tagging is depicted
in OUR map. It
I have proposed the node relation, a concept that I was missing for some
time now. Have a look here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Node
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
In the US, most of these sort of things are markers where people died in
accidents. Wikipedia calls them roadside memorials (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_memorial), and I guess that might be
the most common term in the US.
Shrine, to my ears, has a different, more specifically
In the US, most of *these* sort of things are markers where people died
in accidents. Wikipedia calls them roadside memorials (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_memorial), and I guess that might
be the most common term in the US.
To clarify, by these, you mean historic=wayside_cross,
On 09/07/2014 09:44, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Calling it replacement doesn't mean it's not deprecation. The
proposal is still trying to deprecate power=minor_line, and to remove
the simple physical distinction between really big thing on big
pylons vs. smaller overhead lines that you can often find
W dniu 09.07.2014 19:08, SomeoneElse napisał(a):
Historically, the standard style was a for mappers style - it was
designed to show features that mappers had mapped. That has been
changing (largely without community involvement or review). I tried
That is exactly what I would expect! There
MapQuest Open is the only map style I never truly understood - it's a
general purpose map, while others have their purpose stated clear in the
name. What were the reason behind taking it on board, does anybody know?
MapQuest matches the prerequisites to be a feature tile on OSM homepage [1].
W dniu 09.07.2014 22:03, John Packer napisał(a):
MapQuest matches the prerequisites to be a feature tile on OSM
homepage [1].
OpenSeaMap matches them even better, so it's still not clear to me why
MQ was selected and OSeaM was not.
A similar discussion recently started on the _talk_
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote:
To clarify, by these, you mean historic=wayside_cross, correct?
Or does historic=tree_shrine has the same meaning?
I would suspect so - this is consistent with my area as well, where these
features are called descansos
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl wrote:
1) This proposal requires a voltage tag to distinguish big and small
power lines. If mappers don't add a voltage tag then it's probably because
they don't know the voltage and this information is often difficult to get
hand
What Jesse said. :) Including that they're often relatively temporary.
That might explain why there are so few in the US compared to Europe?
I'd seen this discussion before and thought it was kind of obscure, then
just looked at taginfo and was surprised by how many there are--wow! I'd
seen
If really you insist to have an indication for minor, we can introduce
line:type=minor/major but I definitely recommend to get this out of the
primary tag.
Ok ?
*François Lacombe*
francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
I think the problem with Openseamap is that they have two layers of tiles,
one standard layer which they take from openstreetmap servers:
http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/15/17484/10492.png
and one over it, with all the symbols:
http://tiles.openseamap.org/seamark/15/17484/10492.png
2014-07-09
Should there be a relation with type=way? For when you need a way that is
not an area over an existing way. Example would be a fence that is put on a
wall.
Janko
Dana 9. 7. 2014. 19:47 osoba Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
napisala je:
I have proposed the node relation, a concept
Am 09/lug/2014 um 23:49 schrieb Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
Should there be a relation with type=way? For when you need a way that is not
an area over an existing way. Example would be a fence that is put on a wall.
I think yes
___
Tagging
44 matches
Mail list logo
