Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread althio althio
How about... > non-denominational places (Airport chapels ...) religion=all > places shared between faiths religion=multi Optionally more details with a scheme similar to: religion:christian =yes/* religion:muslim

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread johnw
> > SomeoneElse wrote on 2015-01-08 23:28: > > Would you see an OSM-relevant difference between them, or could they go with > the > same multi(faith) value? > > > tom Multi seems to be the right value. the definition on the wiki should reference those other fancier words so there is no con

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread Tom Pfeifer
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-01-09 00:56: denomination=none ;-) Nice, but we need to stay on the religion= level 2015-01-08 23:21 GMT+01:00 johnw : > The exact word is nondenominational, but multi fits with OSM definitions. As above, I would avoid the term 'denomination' in the value, t

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
M 2015-01-08 23:21 GMT+01:00 johnw : > The exact word is nondenominational, but multi fits with OSM definitions. > Maybe referencing that word on the wiki definition is the way to go. > > Wikipedia: > > "A non-denominational person or organization is not restricted to any > particular or specific

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread SomeoneElse
On 08/01/2015 22:21, johnw wrote: On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Tom Pfeifer > wrote: ... My favourite would be "multi" as is is concise and also used in sport=multi, The exact word is nondenominational, but multi fits with OSM definitions. Maybe referencing th

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread johnw
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > No value has been documented so far for rooms dedicated for worshipping > without being limited to a specific religion. > > My favourite would be "multi" as is is concise and also used in sport=multi, The exact word is nondenominational, b

Re: [Tagging] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?

2015-01-08 Thread moltonel 3x Combo
On 08/01/2015, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 08/01/2015 01:21, Dave F. wrote: > >> Are they relevant? If so, what are they for? The wiki suggests they're >> superseded: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members >> > > No it doesn't, it says they're 'optional, disputed, and

[Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-08 Thread Tom Pfeifer
No value has been documented so far for rooms dedicated for worshipping without being limited to a specific religion. It is useful however so a renderer could apply a specific icon, and a mapper sees that it is not just forgotten. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:religion Such rooms are f

Re: [Tagging] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?

2015-01-08 Thread Steve Doerr
On 08/01/2015 01:21, Dave F. wrote: Are they relevant? If so, what are they for? The wiki suggests they're superseded: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members No it doesn't, it says they're 'optional, disputed, and redundant'. The term 'redundant' has multiple

Re: [Tagging] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?

2015-01-08 Thread Pieren
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > So yes, remove them if you are familiar with the mapping style in the > area you're editing and they are indeed unusual there, but leave them in > place if it looks like the standard operating procedure in the area. In France, we know only o