sent from a phone
> On 19. Jun 2017, at 23:21, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Regarding names of geographic features - these are rarely verifiable on
> the ground, especially for natural objects, verifiability here often is
> equivalent to "you get consistent answers if you ask locals about th
On Monday 19 June 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> *Ideally* verified on the ground, but yes, other means of
> verifiability can be acceptable. However, the OP in this case
> explicitly said that "The extent of a settlement is not explicitly
> defined" which certainly thwarts *any* kind of verificati
Hi,
On 06/19/2017 05:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> If you can't point to a sign on the ground, don't map topoynms.
>
> -1, our criterion for mapping something is that it can be verified, signs are
> only a part of it.
*Ideally* verified on the ground, but yes, other means of verifiabili
2017-06-19 14:15 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm :
> If you can't point to a sign on the ground, don't map topoynms.
>
-1. May be in some urban areas it's usual to find signs for toponyms, but
more frequently -mainly in rural and wild areas- the toponyms are in the
knowledge of the local people, not in s
sent from a phone
> On 19. Jun 2017, at 15:15, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> If you can't point to a sign on the ground, don't map topoynms.
-1, our criterion for mapping something is that it can be verified, signs are
only a part of it.
cheers,
Martin
_
Hi,
On 06/18/2017 06:59 PM, Joachim wrote:
> * The extend of a settlement is not explicitly defined
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_geography). This might lead
> to disputes
Then we shouldn't map it.
> For the first two points I present a solution. For the third I thrust
> national/l
2017-06-19 12:44 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
> by the way is wrong. Nodes and areas are two abstract concepts within
> OSM used to represent elements of reality. While there are features
> that would normally be represented as areas that are occasionally as a
> simplified representation mapped
On Sunday 18 June 2017, Joachim wrote:
>
> Detailed proposal with summary tables:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place_areas
I have to say i don't quite understand what you are actually proposing
with the different scenarios described.
Also i have some trouble understand
While I believe that this is in general a good idea, I don't agree with
tagging those place objects with admin_level tags. It would lead to more
confusion and I don't see why we would need it, or what it would solve
(rather the opposite: it would contradict the place concept of a place
being someth
The mapping of settlements as place areas has long been hindered by
several problems:
* The usability of place=* polygons (huge closed ways, multipolygons)
* The centre information would be lost
* The extend of a settlement is not explicitly defined
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_geograp
10 matches
Mail list logo
