As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the
sidewalk proposal as per:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk
We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's
been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:15:48 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
>> There's an abandoned tag for sidewalks along the side of the road that
>> apparently has some use in the UK:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:37 PM, David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:17:14 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
>> Based on this thread, there seems to be general consensus that the
>> term "sidewalk" is less linguistically ambiguous than footway.
>
>
Based on this thread, there seems to be general consensus that the
term "sidewalk" is less linguistically ambiguous than footway.
Where folks are concerned about dual meaning, we can ensure that's
resolved via fixing the wiki, checking JOSM presets, and checking
Potlatch/PL2.
Data consumers who a
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM, wrote:
> Collapsing the two tags into one seems reasonable, but there should continue
> to be a wiki page for whichever tag is discontinued, in order to direct
> people to the preferred tag.
That's what wiki redirects are for. :)
- Serge
There's an abandoned tag for sidewalks along the side of the road that
apparently has some use in the UK:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Great_britain/En/tags.html
And there's a nearly identical tag proposal called Sidewalk:
http://wiki.
MHO, a vegetarian tag would be best expanded to any dietary guidelines.
For example, I can't have gluten, and some places specialize in gluten
free options. Big chains will have an allergy menu and include gluten,
but some places are actually specialty gluten free, just like some
places are pure v
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:45 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>> Also, I definitely think we should try and align to external standards.
>
> +1
Look at the ICAO classifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class
Nonetheless I think the OSM classifications are good because they
handle t
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> Totally agree. More over, every time you use the symbol ":" in your tag, you
> mean that the subtag is telling something more specific about the maintag
> thats in front of it.
I have no idea what "subtag" and "maintag" are, but the symbol
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've created a proposal for imagery objects and other objects that are
> only used internaly in osm.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/osm
> Aerial Imagery:
> ---
> With the new Bing ima
A bit OT, but the minute I started reading this thread, I couldn't
help but think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac
- Serge
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ed Hillsman wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:04:11 +1100, Steve Bennett
> wrote:
>
>>I think "storage" and "self-storage" imply different things. The
>>former would be warehousing etc for business customers, and the latter
>>for the general public.
>>
>>That said,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Sam Vekemans
wrote:
> Would calling it 'Open Map Features' make it a bit more clear for everyone?
> As this IRC chat room can cover more general chat (about map features)
> so it will attract the wider geo community to participate.
Sam,
Will you just be honest w
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 10/22/10 1:45 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> 2010/10/22 Richard Welty:
>>>
>>> for ATMs, brand and operator are likely to be the same, as what
>>> the user really wants to know is if it's his bank, or one that will hit
>>> him up wit
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Sam Vekemans
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm happy to report that i have now (finally) converted the OSM Map
> Features page into a Google Docs spreadsheet
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features
Sam,
I don't see a license on your spreadsheet, but I'd like to
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap wrote:
> So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
> made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
> mostly remedied. If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 5
> nodes of inform
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
> important about the fact that the tree is standing alone that it needs to
> specifically be tagged as standing (or not standing) alone?
David,
Maybe you missed the begi
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NopMap wrote:
>
>
> That is not a solution. For 4 years people have done valid tagging, using
> the definition in the wiki for significant trees. If you change the meaning,
> no denotation=landmark will magically appear there, so the information gets
> lost.
As Ric
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:20 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/6 NopMap :
> Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that
> 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the
> valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag
> descriptio
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> In practice, it seems unlikely that any one will try to tag every tree in a
> forest
It's entirely possible to map every tree in a city. Someone else
mentioned Girona, I'll mention that Washington, DC's data contains
trees and could be im
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> Yup, using the English meaning is fine. It is one of the faux-ami between
> English and French.
I wonder how many disappointed Americans walk into a bar looking for
women's lingerie.
- Serge
__
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Liz wrote:
> No, a major belief system has subcategories. that's not a problem
> but I don't think that the items grouped as "pagan" are subcategories of a
> major belief system called 'pagan"
This argument not withstanding, the initial issue you brought up seems
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> Am 15.05.2010 19:18, Serge Wroclawski:
>> 2) We fix the definition of parking and change the renderer.
>>
> Redefining an established tag won't work. How will you ensure that the
> remaining... hundreds of
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Katie Filbert wrote:
> Regarding rendering, two weeks ago, a change was made to the Mapnik
> rendering:
Yeah, I forgot to mention that, since the changeset I applied last
night was assuming the old rules.
- Serge
___
What I'm about to post here is (for the most part) replicated in a
Trac ticket to the Rendering folks at:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2968
but I think this will probably require a change to the tagging of
amenity=parking, so I'm sending it here as well.
In Washington, DC, we've received p
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
