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
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
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
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 ("fuel=octane_98;diesel").
>>
>> So the first one should
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 ("fuel=octane_98;diesel").
So the first one should be preferred. Does that make sense?
- one is a nightmare for
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 think it depend a lot from key to key.
I think that my point
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:17:41 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen
wrote:
> Matija Nalis:
>> e.g. if "fuel=octane_98;diesel" was tagged, it would be ambiguous - does
>> it mean that there there is no LPG, or that the mapper didn't care to survey
>> that separated area of fuel station where LPG is being
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:17:41 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen
wrote:
> Matija Nalis:
>> e.g. if "fuel=octane_98;diesel" was tagged, it would be ambiguous - does
>> it mean that there there is no LPG, or that the mapper didn't care to survey
>> that separated area of fuel station where LPG is being
Niels Elgaard Larsen :
> For example if you use the template for restaurants and fast_food (but not
> cafes for
> some reason) in JOSM, you get a combobox where you can select one or more
> values for
> "cuisine". I would not assume that if I select indian or sushi that it
> excludes asian.
>
Matija Nalis:
IMHO basically the main reason why multi-tag standard (e.g. fuel:octane_98=yes,
fuel:diesel=yes, fuel:lpg=no) was invented is precisely because in
multi-value system it would have been impossible to mark the difference
between "this fuel is not present" and "it is
Le 19.04.23 à 11:57, Philip Barnes a écrit :
if its octane 95 it will be E10
maybe
fuel:octane_95:E10 = yes
fuel:octane_99:E5 = yes
the ":" between octane and E gives the impression
that several combinations are possible.
If you say that this is not the case, then it seems more logical
to
On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 00:39 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
> Apr 19, 2023, 00:14 by mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr:
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:08:39 +0200, Marc_marc
> > wrote:
> > > Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a é
Apr 19, 2023, 00:14 by mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:08:39 +0200, Marc_marc wrote:
>
>> Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
>>
>>> Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
>>>
>>
Specific cases have largely been stated, but I think it does bear repeating
that "semantics come from many different flavors of syntax."
Tags on a datum state (or should) "what is known." Sometimes it or wider data
as a whole yield an answer to your specific question. However, assuming beyond
Le 19.04.23 à 00:09, Matija Nalis a écrit :
With multi-tag standard it is unambiguous
only because we haven't invented the equivalent of =no
it would have been enough to do tag=diesel;-lpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:08:39 +0200, Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
>> Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
>
> no, some contributors will fill in what they are interested in,
> others will fill in everything that i
Le 18.04.23 à 18:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
yes *:others=no but also *:*=only exist for that purpose
=only works only when you have station offering single fuel, right?
I have see (and maybe also use it mayself), a objet with 2 =only,
to describe that it's only what's
On 18/04/2023 17:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Apr 18, 2023, 17:39 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
I have come across a few cases where a mapper has has blindly
answered no to a list of octane ratings that do not exist in the
country they are mapping in.
In the UK it is
Apr 18, 2023, 17:12 by marc_m...@mailo.com:
> Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
>
>> Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
>>
>
> no, some contributors will fill in what they are interested in,
> others will fill in everythi
Apr 18, 2023, 17:39 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
> I have come across a few cases where a mapper has has blindly answered no to
> a list of octane ratings that do not exist in the country they are mapping in.
>
> In the UK it is safe to assume every filling station sells Euro 95/E10 and
>
rit :
>> Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
>
>no, some contributors will fill in what they are interested in,
>others will fill in everything that is visible (and may not
>be able to see the blue additive pump not visible from the car pumps), others
>will do an exaustive survey
Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
no, some contributors will fill in what they are interested in,
others will fill in everything that is visible (and may not
be able to see the blue additive pump not visible from the car
For example amenity=fuel + fuel:octane_80=yes
Is it implying that it is sole type of fuel available?
Would it be mistake to tag
amenity=fuel + fuel:octane_80=yes
when also some other fuels are available?
It seems to be fine, is it right?
Is it possible to mark that fuel station
has solely
23 matches
Mail list logo
