On Wednesday 09 July 2014, Daniel Koć wrote:
[...] It's just my beginnings there, so
I'll wait some time before saying anything conclusive, but for now
I'm very surprised how the low hanging fruit can be not picked for so
long without anybody noticing it, even if all the code is already
Thanks for starting this discussion. Personally I think it makes sense
to define different types of peaks in the data. It would solve the
problem we have now, where tiny hillocks are rendered just like huge
mountains.
On 8 July 2014 15:14, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
The
On 9 July 2014 00:05, Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl wrote:
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:04, yvecai napisał(a):
However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of
rendering examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the
You don't even realize how sad is this observation for
On 9 July 2014 02:56, Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl wrote:
but for now I'm very surprised how the
low hanging fruit can be not picked for so long without anybody noticing it,
even if all the code is already waiting to be merged (
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/705
2014-07-09 13:39 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
In general a good tagging scheme should stand alone and not be designed
specifically for a certain rendering. To this aim it is quite good not
to have a too close connection between tagging and rendering.
+1. These are
W dniu 09.07.2014 17:01, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
+1. These are really two different aspects, because the tagging has
the aim to give a short, detailed, precise, specific description of
something (and so allows distinction from something different).
And then sometimes you end up with
2014-07-09 18:51 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
And then sometimes you end up with rendering problem because of lack of
enough distinction in the tagging (they are by your definition not what
they really should be), and what than? I would get back to tagging studio
and think if
Hi,
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing
natural=peak tag:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak
This is my first attempt to define OSM features.
***
BTW - my mail was awaiting for admin approval too long, so I canceled it
and now I post it
2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing natural=peak
tag:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak
This is my first attempt to define OSM features.
I am not sure this is something we'd want
Am 08.07.2014 17:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl
mailto:dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing
natural=peak tag:
Am 08.07.2014 17:52, schrieb fly:
Am 08.07.2014 17:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl
mailto:dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing
natural=peak tag:
W dniu 08.07.2014 16:14, SomeoneElse napisał(a):
Currently taginfo suggests almost no usage of peak like this
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/peak#values
Yes, but that's exactly where the problem is: I think people are simply
cheating now. =} They see no other peak tags in wiki, so
On Tuesday 08 July 2014, fly wrote:
Sorry forgot the links:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/key:prominence
This can be calculated automatically in principle
Calculating relief features from a DEM is doable. Naming them is not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
This proposal is not a bad idea: refining an existing tag can't do no harm.
However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of rendering
examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the renderer
render and the cartographer style the map, and trust them to understand
W dniu 08.07.2014 18:50, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
the tag, i.e. I would deliberately choose natural=peak for all kind of
peaks and hilltops regardless their (geological) history. If someone
took off some stones from a natural peak it would become a man made
peak for you and you'd tag it
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:25, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
I agree, man_made=mound isn't a bad idea.
Great, feel free to make such amendments!
My original proposition is rather wide, since I'm not familiar with many
types of terrain objects and don't want to pretend I get the whole
picture.
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:04, yvecai napisał(a):
However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of
rendering examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the
You don't even realize how sad is this observation for me...
What is the role of writing documentation than - and
Daniel, I don't know about standardization of rendering, but I would say
the advice on the wiki is followed by OSM mappers much more often than some
veterans think.
2014-07-08 20:05 GMT-03:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:04, yvecai napisał(a):
However, if
W dniu 09.07.2014 2:56, John Packer napisał(a):
Daniel, I don't know about standardization of rendering, but I would
say the advice on the wiki is followed by OSM mappers much more often
than some veterans think.
Still there are some notable cases when they're not. I wouldn't be
interested in
20 matches
Mail list logo
