Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

On Jul 28, 2016 9:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: > From the older scheme there is also the boundary=national_park tag in use with 18000 occurences: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park There's some reluctance in the US to use that tag for things

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

2016-07-27 19:34 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny : > > I also note that it isn't just a US thing. Calling an "area of outstanding > natural beauty" boundary=national_park, or a "regional park" or > "marine protected area" leisure=nature_reserve is just as much > tagging for the

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

2016-07-28 15:00 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > Isn't one of the problems that they would have to reimport the > complete database ? > yes, but this is something that has to be done from time to time anyway. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > It's also a decision that can be deferred. Enabling hstore while keeping > the existing columns would be Mostly Harmless, particularly if the keys Isn't one of the problems that they would have to reimport the

Re: [Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

2016-07-28 10:29 GMT+02:00 Michael Reichert : > railway=disused is a very old and established tag. actually, the very old and formerly established way was railway=*, disused=yes railway=disused is not so old, is quite established and often complemented by disused=*

Re: [Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

Hello, adding railway=disused additionally to disused:railway=* ensures backward compatibility, so that renderers which do not consider lifecycle prefixes still produce good results. It might also be easier for some renderers just to look at the value of railway=* than using rendering rules like

Re: [Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Am 28.07.2016 um 09:31 schrieb Warin: > My understanding is; > > The primary tag is railway=disused. > > Then you have a 'sub tag' to describe what is disused .. a railway > station, light rail line etc. railway=disused is a very old and

Re: [Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

sent from a phone > Il giorno 28 lug 2016, alle ore 09:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > > The primary tag is railway=disused. > > Then you have a 'sub tag' to describe what is disused .. a railway station, > light rail line etc. IMHO this is an old scheme, nowadays you

Re: [Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

On 7/28/2016 4:54 PM, David Marchal wrote: Hello, there. I've been told in a JOSM ticket (https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12866#comment:2) that the wiki states that disused:railway=* requires railway=disused, and, indeed, the wiki says that

Re: [Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

sent from a phone > Il giorno 28 lug 2016, alle ore 08:54, David Marchal ha > scritto: > > the wiki states that disused:railway=* requires railway=disused doesn't make sense to me cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

Hello, there. I've been told in a JOSM ticket (https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12866#comment:2) that the wiki states that disused:railway=* requires railway=disused, and, indeed, the wiki says that (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:railway). I don't understand why as,