Hi Richard.
Never heard of that, so let me ask to clearify...
On 23.09.2010 00:59, Richard Welty wrote:
On 9/22/10 6:47 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary
actually had a name, e.g. X Y Border, but the river also has a
different
On 9/23/10 7:27 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Hi Richard.
Never heard of that, so let me ask to clearify...
On 23.09.2010 00:59, Richard Welty wrote:
On 9/22/10 6:47 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary
actually had a name, e.g. X Y
Check out the murray river polygon/relation stuff near Albury I did if
you want an example
On 9/23/10, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:06 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
Since it would be almost impossible for a single way along a river
Yep, this is how I understood that guideline to be. So if you have a polygon
where there was just a node before representing the same thing, you're free
to delete the node in favor of the polygon assuming no data (i.e., tag info)
is lost.
Here's what the wiki says [1]
One feature, one OSM-object
On 23/09/2010 12:46, Richard Welty wrote:
furthermore, i would consider representing a building with unknown
outline with a node to be a bit iffy.
I realize this is going a bit OT, but since you brought it up - why do
you think that?
Ta
Dave F.
Quite a number of times I've noticed a single way having the tag
boundary=administrative (I assume having come from the Australian ABS
import and being part of a larger relation marking some town or
suburb) but also having waterway=stream (for example
On 22 September 2010 21:19, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
My interpretation of the One feature, one OSM-object suggestion
I can only assume that was referring to physical objects, rather than
meta information.
Boundaries aren't a physical object, and they're not properly dealt
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote:
With JOSM you can achieve that by drawing a way by clicking on the node
one by one. It will draw a new way using the same nodes.
That is okay for a couple nodes, but is error prone and tedious for
hundreds of nodes
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:29 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Boundaries aren't a physical object, and they're not properly dealt
with most of the time in any case.
Waterways is one of the few things, especially where no hi-res imagery
is available, I actually think they can be
On 22/09/2010 13:36, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorangepdora...@mac.com wrote:
With JOSM you can achieve that by drawing a way by clicking on the node
one by one. It will draw a new way using the same nodes.
That is okay for a couple nodes,
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote:
on JOSM :
copy the way (ctr + C),
create a new layer (ctrl + N) and don't clic in it,
paste the way (ctrl + V) (the nodes are at the same place),
put the tags,
merge the layers,
merge the duplicated nodes (validator
On 22. September 2010 18:20 Andrew Harvey [andrew.harv...@gmail.com] wrote:
If this is the agreed upon thing then it would be great if someone could
run a script that split the waterway tags from the boundary ones into a
new way.
On 22. September 2010 18:32 Pierre-Alain Dorange
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Willi wil...@gmx.de wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct
.. you may read in the Wiki are not a carte blanche for you to change
everything so that it
fits the Wiki rules.
And, of course, these rules include the code of
On 22/09/2010 14:17, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Vincent Pottiervpott...@gmail.com wrote:
on JOSM :
copy the way (ctr + C),
create a new layer (ctrl + N) and don't clic in it,
paste the way (ctrl + V) (the nodes are at the same place),
put the tags,
merge the
On 22/09/2010 14:14, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/9/22 Vincent Pottiervpott...@gmail.com:
yes. I use the 3d way (drawing 2 ways sharing nodes). I prefer this method
for the reason given : if the bank/flow changes, the border may not.
and you will be happily unglueing nodes till
On 22 September 2010 21:43, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
They may need to be split later anyway if the river moves (say from
erosion), but the administrative boundary doesn't. If however a river
and boundary were split into different ways now then tags aren't mixed
and cannot
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
As for the specific question, I would say that if the boundary is
defined by the natural feature, it's probably OK to use one way. For
example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78384443 is legally
defined as
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I think one feature, one object is usually used in the other
direction: you don't tag the boundary name=x and also put it in a
boundary relation with name=x. You don't put a fast_food node in the
middle of a building
On 9/22/10 6:47 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary
actually had a name, e.g. X Y Border, but the river also has a
different name.
one of the operative theories here is that in cases of shared ways,
we should be using the higher level
On 23 September 2010 08:47, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary
actually had a name, e.g. X Y Border, but the river also has a
different name.
Since it would be almost impossible for a single way along a river to
20 matches
Mail list logo
