Am 06.01.2011 23:47, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
Think of the Windows Vista Ready (pfft!) certification: it didn't
mean that that software/device was of better quality than another one
without the certification, but if you were planning to use it with
Vista then it had better characteristics than
2011/1/6 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com:
...for example, in the last
few weeks on talk-it we exhumed once again the problem that an amenity=bar
is not really a bar as we conceive it in Italy. Sadly though, despite the
interesting debate, and notwithstanding the fact that both parties
On 01/06/2011 10:03 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
I suggested that some users with proven credentials be put in charge of
their own matter: for example, that one or more doctors in Civil
Engineering took care of the Civil Engineering course. I was told that
that's not how a wiki works and that a
On 01/06/2011 11:47 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
It's not an advantage on the application side in itself; it's more of
an advantage for the user. Say I'm a cyclist and I want a map: I'll
prefer one with CycleMap 4.3 over one with CycleMap 1.2 over one with no
CycleMap.
If you plan to have half
Have you seen the presentation of Tag Central that came out of the
last State of the Map conference? I think something like this was
covered in that, though I could be thinking of the wrong thing.
Stephen
On 6 January 2011 13:00, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 January 2011
Le 06/01/2011 05:07, Steve Bennett a écrit :
Putting in place a serious process for tag migration will be
difficult. I suggest that a first step will be definition of an actual
schema, with version number. For example, define an actual list of
several hundred tags, with semantics, that
2011/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Putting in place a serious process for tag migration will be difficult. I
suggest that a first step will be definition of an actual schema, with
version number. For example, define an actual list of several hundred tags,
with semantics, that
On 7 January 2011 01:44, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote:
More organisation would surely help, but this is in contrast with the wiki
principle.
For the most part things could stay as status quo, it's only
existing/well established tags, such as waterway=dam|weir that might
fit
Am 06.01.2011 16:44, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
2011/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com mailto:stevag...@gmail.com
Putting in place a serious process for tag migration will be
difficult. I suggest that a first step will be definition of an
actual schema, with version number. For
On 01/06/2011 06:00 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
What beside of this - I fear, stupid - certification is the benefit
for a hiking map in supporting e.g. maxspeed of motorways as part of the
OSM core being the decision basis to get the certification?
To make a better example: Garmin AiO for
2011/1/6 Ralf Kleineisel r...@kleineisel.de
On 01/06/2011 06:00 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
What beside of this - I fear, stupid - certification is the benefit
for a hiking map in supporting e.g. maxspeed of motorways as part of the
OSM core being the decision basis to get the
On 7 January 2011 07:03, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but it's a matter of defining a line between chaos and coordinated
anarchy. It seems that many OSMers would not want to go any further than an
anarchy, this may be ok, but for the data to be somehow useful (and not
2011/1/6 Ralf Kleineisel r...@kleineisel.de
Remember, the goal of OSM is a FREE map, not one with a lot of rules and
restrictions. There are enough restricted maps out there.
Let me express another comment on this. OSM's map is FREE in the sense that
it is FREELY USABLE and DISTRIBUTABLE. You
Hi Simone.
I agree that some definition of core features would be useful.
I think I wrote that in my last mail here, too.
I simply don't see the benefit of a certificate on application side.
Let's consider two alternatives.
Either the certification requires support for the most 5 important
Am 06.01.2011 23:06, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
... but in fact the map is not reliably usable.
Fine, if you think OSM is working unreliably - just go on and start your
own reliable project :-)
If you set up something like an OSM core profile and the majority of
people find it useful, this
2011/1/6 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
Hi Simone.
I agree that some definition of core features would be useful.
I think I wrote that in my last mail here, too.
I simply don't see the benefit of a certificate on application side.
It's not an advantage on the application side in
2011/1/6 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
Am 06.01.2011 23:06, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
... but in fact the map is not reliably usable.
Fine, if you think OSM is working unreliably - just go on and start your
own reliable project :-)
If you set up something like an OSM core profile
On 7/01/2011 4:00 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
What's the benefit of that?
What beside of this - I fear, stupid - certification is the benefit
for a hiking map in supporting e.g. maxspeed of motorways as part of
the OSM core being the decision basis to get the certification?
You've unfortunately
On 7/01/2011 7:07 AM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
I think that map renderers and map makers already do their best to
support as many useful (for their map!) tags as possible and most
mappers do their best to map according to the wiki definition because
they want their work to appear on the maps.
If
Am 07.01.2011 00:10, schrieb Steve Bennett:
If by do their best you mean, the people involved work hard and in
good faith, yes. If you mean the result is optimal, then clearly not.
There are lots of bugs in mapnik.
Where are the trac tickets to improve the situation?
And just look at the
Things seem to have gotten way off track, I started this thread to get
ideas/feedback on how we could replace an existing tag like
waterway=weir and instead make it a subtag along with other similar
flow control tags like dams, sluice_gates, flood_gates, lock_gates and
so on...
Any talk about a
On 6 January 2011 08:47, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm working on the basis that it's not possible to move any established
tag. Would be happy to hear suggestions for how to accomplish that, though.
This seems to be an area that OSM *really* lacks, and some people give
usage of
On 6/01/2011 2:00 PM, John Smith wrote:
This seems to be an area that OSM *really* lacks, and some people give
usage of tags as a reason not to improve things which doesn't seem
like a valid argument especially when some tags like abutters and
created_by have been depreciated.
I'm spit balling
2) Post to the talk list asking for feedback/discussion
3) About 2 weeks after the last discussion/modifications to the
proposal you post a vote request to both the tagging and the talk
lists
It would be nice to have a list that map data consumers could subscribe
to that we could poll to
On 6 January 2011 14:07, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
My guess is that this mailing list and talk@ reach a pretty small proportion
of users. Simply announcing we're changing the tag! please tag differently
from now on! is not remotely sufficient.
As I stated I was spit balling and
On 6 January 2011 14:23, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
It would be nice to have a list that map data consumers could subscribe
to that we could poll to verify that they are or are not using a tag, or get
clarification on how they are using a tag. (Just what we needanother
blankin'
On 6/01/2011 3:26 PM, John Smith wrote:
Exactly, this is why I'm advocating some kind of policy on how to
achieve tag updates in a much more reasonable time frame.
In your thinking there seems to be the assumption that we run some
process *per tag*. I think it works better to run a process
On 6 January 2011 16:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
In your thinking there seems to be the assumption that we run some process
*per tag*. I think it works better to run a process *per schema revision*.
Oh, a regular update schedule, that might be a good idea, however ...
Let's
28 matches
Mail list logo
