Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes
that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a
route relation describing it.
Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as
being 'wrong'?
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad wrote:
>
Can you point to some examples?
In Belgium and The Netherlands we have node-networks. and some of the
routes that are mapped in those networks can be pretty short. The
shortest I know is only a few meters long:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1696883#map=19/51.01511/4.44965
regards
m.
On
I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
trails/paths. This is wrong isn't it? Do you suppose that folks are
doing this to get better rendering?
Brad
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:25, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> If you arrive at the airport in Bali with your in-laws, and look on Maps.me
> for the closest taxi stand and walk over to it, you will be quite
> disappointed to find a line of motorcycles, and have to walk back to the
> other side of the
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 19:30, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
> In fact, I'm not sure how useful it is for us to tag phone numbers on
> phoneboxes at all. Does anyone actually use this data for something useful?
>
Your local drug-dealers so people can ring them at the phone box? :-)
On Mon, 11 May
This seems very logical. This is very evident jn Thailand also. Its like
every 2 blocks in Bangkok there is a motorcycle taxi stand.
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:26 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys, we are not talking about mapping a taxi call centre, where you
>
You guys, we are not talking about mapping a taxi call centre, where you
use a phone number to order a cab. We are talking about mapping a taxicab
queue or stand: a spot where taxis wait for passengers.
Of course if you have 8 people in your part, and walk up to a taxicab
stand, they might tell
On 11.05.2020 03:10, Paul Allen wrote:
> I'm far from convinced that contact:website is useful. It's certainly
> semantically wrong. It's a contact;webpage not a contact:website
> (there are maybe a handful of exceptions to that). Why do you think
> the user is more likely to require the
May 11, 2020, 13:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 11:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>> May 11, 2020, 10:06 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski <>>> ja...@piorkowski.ca>>>
May 11, 2020, 15:04 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> I would also advocate to focus on parts of tagging that
> are without known long-standing gridlock.
>
> Like contact:phone vs phone.
>
To clarify: I advocate avoiding known messes like
phone vs contact:phone - this one will not be ever
May 11, 2020, 03:47 by cjmal...@mail.com:
> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 02:10 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> And yet you, and others, keep saying it. "Deprecate" means "express
>> disapproval of." In the context of OSM, it means "phase out." That
>> is,
>> eradicate with the passage of time. It
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 13:51, Marc M. wrote:
> Le 11.05.20 à 14:42, Paul Allen a écrit :
> > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:58, s8evq wrote:
> > What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that contact:*
> > makes it easier for data consumers to gather all contact info in one
> >
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 02:48, Cj Malone wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 02:10 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > And yet you, and others, keep saying it. "Deprecate" means "express
> > disapproval of." In the context of OSM, it means "phase out." That
> > is,
> > eradicate with the passage of time.
Le 11.05.20 à 14:42, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:58, s8evq wrote:
> What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that contact:*
> makes it easier for data consumers to gather all contact info in one
> go, instead of hard coding all the possible keys. What
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:58, s8evq wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 02:10:12 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived. But fine, if
> > you want it then use it. Just please stop suggesting that we
> > deprecate website=* and phone=*.
>
>
Le 11.05.20 à 11:29, Shawn K. Quinn a écrit :
> In fact, I'm not sure how useful it is for us to tag phone numbers on
> phoneboxes at all. Does anyone actually use this data for something useful?
it look like a ref, and a ref is useful to link 2 databases,
including if we put it in the ref key :)
Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 11:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> May 11, 2020, 10:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
>
> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
> public parking
+1
I find you wrote down very sound and logical arguments.
Splitting phone into "a way of contacting a business" and "a telephone number
of a phonebooth" sounds logic.
Counterargument is that you can figure this out by the fact that phone=* +
shop=* means it's a business number.
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 11 May 2020 02:10:12 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived. But fine, if
> you want it then use it. Just please stop suggesting that we
> deprecate website=* and phone=*.
What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that
May 11, 2020, 10:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>>
>> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
>> public parking then you also need to know to check for
>> access!=private.
>>
>
>
> this
On 5/10/20 7:36 PM, Cj Malone wrote:
> I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
> Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
> number for a phone box. We should split these
Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 02:38 Uhr schrieb Cj Malone :
> Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
> number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as
sent from a phone
> On 11. May 2020, at 10:04, Marc M. wrote:
>
> I don't imagine we're going to create several objects to describe
> that a taxi waiting area has motorcycles, "normal" cars, vehicles
> with a lot of passenger seats and vehicles with a heavy
> luggage capacity.
> on the ground
sent from a phone
> On 11. May 2020, at 03:18, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to
> public parking then you also need to know to check for
> access!=private.
this is indeed an unfortunate choice. Tagging a private access parking
Hello,
Le 10.05.20 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the
> airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would
> that be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi?
Imagine ordering a taxi and arriving in
在 2020年5月11日週一 09:18，Jarek Piórkowski 寫道：
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick wrote:
> > I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or
> districts where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things
> to be managed.
>
> If you are managing taxis and
26 matches
Mail list logo
