Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Thanks for the explanation. I see your point. On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 7:10 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 18:53, Colin Smale a écrit : > >> If we want to describe the overall transfer function of the whole >> "building", then we need to describe the input and

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Hi Colin, Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 18:53, Colin Smale a écrit : > If we want to describe the overall transfer function of the whole > "building", then we need to describe the input and output characteristics, > and some aspects of the path from input to output. Just stating a couple of > voltages

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

On 2019-06-08 18:08, François Lacombe wrote: > Specifically on the topic, a converter hall will never have only one feature > inside : you'll find the converter, but cooling and auxiliary power stuff > also, and all that world should get individual features > >> By the way, your last example:

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

7 Jun 2019, 19:48 by ok...@johnfreed.com: > I believe the key phrase is "single-use" in the sentence you cite. That is, > for instance, if you have a building that is a café (tagged as building=yes) > with a node inside it with the details of the café (name=Rick's Cafe; > amenity=cafe),

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 17:48, Johnparis a écrit : > I disagree with the premise. There is no confict at all between building=* > and power=*. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142321228 for a > typical case. > Not between building=* and power=* but with power=transformer and building=* (for

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

I looked at the actual proposal and I think on the Talk page here is a problem I see. You write: Since power =converter isn't compatible with building

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 17:08, Johnparis a écrit : > I agree with Marc that you should never "create nodes at a random position > with the equipment to avoid the tag for the characteristic". If you place a > node, it should reflect as closely as possible the actual position, > although if the

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

I agree with Marc that you should never "create nodes at a random position with the equipment to avoid the tag for the characteristic". If you place a node, it should reflect as closely as possible the actual position, although if the position is uncertain, it's typical in OSM to place a node

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Thank you two for the elaborated answers I agree that currently many mapping practices split sites and devices. Then the idea should spread as to not get in arguments like the one in the proposal. Nevertheless I have comments regarding Marc examples : * " bin/shelter/bench=yes on a bus stop for

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Hello, Le 07.06.19 à 19:08, François Lacombe a écrit : > a need to distinguish sites and devices in our tagging. making a difference between a characteristic of a site and the device providing that characteristic is already what we do for many objects. below are some examples. I find it quite

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

I believe the key phrase is "single-use" in the sentence you cite. That is, for instance, if you have a building that is a café (tagged as building=yes) with a node inside it with the details of the café (name=Rick's Cafe; amenity=cafe), then you should move the tags from the node to the area and

[Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Hi all, The recent work and talks on a proposal I wrote regarding traction substations show a need to distinguish sites and devices in our tagging. According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element, I think it's a important point, especially when you have complex