[Tagging] shop=screenprinting

2023-04-20 Thread Marc_marc
On 20/04/2023 19:50, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > undocumented shop values I'm using shop=screenprinting https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=screenprinting#overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_printing a betterr value or a good value that need documentation ? :)

Re: [Tagging] openGeoDB* discardable ?

2023-04-20 Thread Marc_marc
Le 17.04.23 à 15:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : Given how many of them are (<20 000) I think that bot edit removing them would be a good idea. this was also my first idea, but as a Swiss contributor is opposed to it, the edition in question will not be done in Switzerland. of

[Tagging] roof:shape=pitched imprecise value ?

2023-04-20 Thread Marc_marc
Hello, is roof:shape=pitched an imprecise value ? I'm not a english naative but for me it could be : mono-pitech roof roof:shape=skillion duble-piteched roof roof:shape=gabled Or I miss something due to the translation ? Regards, Marc ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-20 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Apr 19, 2023, 22:46 by elga...@agol.dk: > Matija Nalis: > >> Hm, I do, but as it would be rather hard to prove (and such proof is not >> paramount here), lets us just agree that it is how certain amount of >> mappers use it (without trying to quantify it with subjective guesses). >> > > > I

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-20 Thread Illia Marchenko
Is it not too late to switch to fuel=* and drop fuel:*=*? Marc_marc : > Le 20.04.23 à 03:28, Matija Nalis a écrit : > > On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:47:21 +0200, Marc_marc > wrote: > >> Le 19.04.23 à 14:19, Matija Nalis a écrit : > >>> I think that my point remains that: > >>> - one method is clear

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-20 Thread Marc_marc
Le 20.04.23 à 03:28, Matija Nalis a écrit : On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:47:21 +0200, Marc_marc wrote: Le 19.04.23 à 14:19, Matija Nalis a écrit : I think that my point remains that: - one method is clear and unambiguous ("fuel:lpg=no") - one method is not clear / is ambiguous