IMO, this sort of information does not belong in the OSM database. If a
shop owner is expert in the field, fine; let them say so in a website
specific to the business and we can add the "expertise" information in that
way. OSM cannot be a database of all things in existence. Besides that,
such data
Thanks Martin for your answers, please refer to the Talkpage for my
answers:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v2_Vehicle_Type_%22coach%22
Cheers!
El 05/10/17 a las 06:22, Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
2017-10-05 0:09 GMT+02:00 Mikolai-Alexander Gü
Hi,
Same as Marc too.
This proposal was discussed for months prior to start voting.
Fortunatly, tags don't need to be "approved" to be used.
If tagging sounds good to people, they will use it, although updating tools
ease a lot the adoption process (only with so called approved tagging).
A longer
On 05-Oct-17 10:41 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
In my understanding, we would not map the personal preferences and
hobbies of individuals.
? We all map our personal preference and hobbies!
Walkers map public rights of way and bicycle riders map bicycle paths,
bicycle parking, bicycle repair stan
But wouldn't you expect (hope? :-)) that the staff at a specialist shop, be
it motorcycles, computers, 2-way radios or anything, would be "expert" in
their field?
Thanks
Graeme
On 5 October 2017 at 22:03, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> 2017-10-05 13:41 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer :
>
>> In the wa
> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:14:56 +
> From: marc marc
> To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org"
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant
> Extensions)
>
> Hello,
>
> Le 05. 10. 17 à 12:16, Viking a écrit :
> > I really don't understand why so many people oppose this p
2017-10-05 0:09 GMT+02:00 Mikolai-Alexander Gütschow <
mikolai.guetsc...@t-online.de>:
> Now, I've looked again at the Oxomoa scheme proposal which already
> suggested an idea to differentiate between different bus route types by
> using the key "bus". Are there any arguments against this approach
2017-10-05 13:41 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer :
> In the wake of the discussion about the methods used to push the
> "motorcycle_friendly" tag, I found that the tag
> "proprietor:motorcyclist=yes/no Whether the proprietor rides himself
> (and therefore got expertise)"
> being described [1], and used 12x
2017-10-05 13:51 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :
>
> No.. I've been meaning to do it for some time, but laziness prevailed.
>
if you don't document it, it will come back sooner or later ;-)
You can also add just a small hint for now, so it could be improved later.
Cheers,
Martin
_
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, 16:47 Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 4. Oct 2017, at 14:53, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> >
> > I use historic=memorial_site. There are 31 of them in OSM right now.
>
>
> I think this is fine for these cases, do you have it documented in the
> wiki?
>
N
In the wake of the discussion about the methods used to push the "motorcycle_friendly" tag, I found
that the tag
"proprietor:motorcyclist=yes/no Whether the proprietor rides himself (and therefore
got expertise)"
being described [1], and used 12x in the database.
In my understanding, we would
2017-10-05 12:37 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> Would depend on the case.
>
> However if each individual tree is a node in OSM, as it would be if each
> has an individual plaque with name,
> then it is simpler to include the nodes in a site relation rather than
> make an new area.
I
Hello,
Le 05. 10. 17 à 12:16, Viking a écrit :
> I really don't understand why so many people oppose this proposal [1] without
> ever having participated in the discussions
it is indeed strange that no opponent took the time to say during
the RFC arguments that are found now during the vote.
yes
That's often the case with the voting process.
However there is a few constructive comments that could be addressed to refine
this proposal. Think about what is essential, and what is not (like namespaces
or not).
In such a specialized tagging scheme, I always thought it would be nice if
vote
On 05-Oct-17 09:16 PM, Viking wrote:
I really don't understand why so many people oppose this proposal [1] without
ever having participated in the discussions that lasted for months.
We did many efforts to reach this compromise that seems a good solution for
firefighters' needs, and now people
On 05-Oct-17 08:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 5. Oct 2017, at 00:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then a site relation could be used to combine them into a combined feature?
a simple polygon would do as well, or are the commemorative trees very sparse?
In t
The tag landuse says some thing about the land being used for some
productive purpose for humans.
In that way landuse=forest says that the area is used/going to be used
to produce something of benefit to humans.
At some time that area may be harvested of trees .. and then have no
trees for a a s
sent from a phone
On 4. Oct 2017, at 23:23, Ilya Zverev wrote:
So, should it be one railway=station + station=subway or four?
I’m not sure for king’s cross, but in the case of Berlin, U Stadtmitte,
there are 2 stations with this name , they are connected by a pedestrian
tunnel (160m says wiki
I really don't understand why so many people oppose this proposal [1] without
ever having participated in the discussions that lasted for months.
We did many efforts to reach this compromise that seems a good solution for
firefighters' needs, and now people are opposing to it whithout understand
I know that it is controversial topic but in practice both natural=wood and
landuse=forest means "area where trees are growing"
On 5 Oct 2017 10:55 a.m., "Martin Koppenhoefer"
wrote:
sent from a phone
> On 5. Oct 2017, at 04:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> It's definitely not intended for
sent from a phone
> On 5. Oct 2017, at 04:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> It's definitely not intended for forestry / logging purposes, so it's not
> landuse=forest
common osm interpretation of landuse=forest is less strict, I think
cheers,
Martin
___
sent from a phone
> On 5. Oct 2017, at 00:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then a site relation could be used to combine them into a combined feature?
a simple polygon would do as well, or are the commemorative trees very sparse?
In the latter case I agree a site relation could s
Can I contribute to this debate?
AFAIK I invented memorial=war_memorial for the Project of the Week which
coincided with 11th November 2010. I agonised a certain amount about the best
tag (both because of issues mentioned here, and because it would apply to both
historic=monument and historic=me
23 matches
Mail list logo
