I'm not advocating using the directory instead of amenity=cafe or
amenity=fuel or whatever. But in the long term, the ideal solution
would probably be to allow that directory type information to be
maintained separately, in a more convenient form than a 2D map.
Particularly since while
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
So, it seems that there is both correct and incorrect usage in similar
amounts so far. I hope to report back with power=sub_station and
power=generator, as well as a count of editing users, soon.
Thanks heaps for
2010/1/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The Dutch cafe example is parallel to the motel / love_hotel example from
Brazil and other countries. Sometimes a term has quite different uses in
different cultures, and these are traps for all
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote:
We map everything we can.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? It's either untrue (as
2010/1/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org
I'm not interested in doing it, as a map is not a good place to store such
information. Phone book information belongs in a phone book, not a map.
I will add some very brief on the subject as a long and convoluted series of
mails tend to bore quite a bit,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Emilie Laffray
emilie.laff...@gmail.comwrote:
Just a little rant, but please chill down as there is no need to get so
excited like this: you have no control over the situation, simple as that.
The only thing I have to say about that is that the very idea of
2010/1/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just a little rant, but please chill down as there is no need to get so
excited like this: you have no control over the situation, simple as that.
The only thing I have to
2010/1/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote:
We map everything we can.
What in the world is that supposed
Instead: Would it be more effective to store POI's in an open
directory (i.e. indexed by address), rather than in the OSM database
(i.e. indexed by lat/long)?
I think it's an interesting question.
I'm not convinced. The original argument was that it is easier to
update when the
Liz wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Ulf Lamping wrote:
d) I don't think it's a good idea to change a tag description two years
after it was documented, because the wording is slightly wrong for
some parts of the english speaking world. Because doing so is an
annoyance for anyone involved
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Ulf Lamping wrote:
But till today, no one came up with a good idea for such a process,
willing to spend the effort to implement it and - this is probably the
critical point - could convince a wide majority of mappers that
following his idea/process is a good thing.
2010/1/19 Liz ed...@billiau.net
currently the general scheme would be to design a new set of tagging which
does not reuse the same tags and deprecate the tags which are decided to be
in
error
so that over time the happy editors can retag features with new ones from
better set
+1
cheers,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but:
a) It doesn't really matter for most mappers.
b) It doesn't really matter for almost anyone else ;-)
Why not? We have a situation where two tags are being used pretty
I think it would be useful to see just how big the confusion is, how many
mappers are involved, etc. I hope to be able to give a reasonable summary
of those tomorrow. A cursory inspection of power=station in southern
California shows it having been applied numerous times to both power plants
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
d) I don't think it's a good idea to change a tag description two years
after it was documented, because the wording is slightly wrong for
some parts of the english speaking world.
The
d) I don't think it's a good idea to change a tag description two years
after it was documented, because the wording is slightly wrong for
some parts of the english speaking world. Because doing so is an
annoyance for anyone involved and the wording will always be slightly
wrong for someone. Not
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Am 18.01.2010 04:47, schrieb Alan Mintz:
At 2010-01-17 19:33, Steve Bennett wrote:
According to the wiki map features table, a power=station is A
tag for electricity stations. Wires from power lines come in or go out
here.
Two questions:
1)
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Redoing the tagging, and leaving the disputed tag out of the new scheme is a
way to go forward.
Redoing the tagging is a little vague. Introduce new tags to resolve
ambiguities - use them in parallel with those specified on the wiki
Steve Bennett wrote:
Remember there are 2 active mappers out there having a specific idea
about that tag in their head,
That's what I'm trying to determine. I suspect that the 20,000 active
mappers actually have several different ideas in their heads. Can you
think of a good way to find
Tobias Knerr wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Remember there are 2 active mappers out there having a specific idea
about that tag in their head,
That's what I'm trying to determine. I suspect that the 20,000 active
mappers actually have several different ideas in their heads. Can
2010/1/18 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
power=tower should be pylon=electricity
power=line should be cable=electricity
Remember, we're meant to be mapping _physical_ entities tagging them
as such.
Yes, but similar key names makes grouping a lot easier, eg a lot of
amenities should be
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
To me power is energy. It's not a physical entity.
That's just silly. Energy is a physical entity.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Anthony o...@inbox.org writes:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
To me power is energy. It's not a physical entity.
That's just silly. Energy is a physical entity.
Well, I guess he meant physical in the sense of a physical object -
something you can
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
To me power is energy. It's not a physical entity.
That's just silly. Energy is a physical entity.
A lump of coal is not energy, just decomposed, squashed plant life in
is better than not to
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:32:41
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
On 18/01/2010 16:03, Dave F. wrote:
A lump
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
OK, this could degenerate into a philosophical discussion,
Yeah, I should have just kept my mouth shut.
so to keep it slightly on tagging:
Would you tag a
Liz wrote:
Redoing the tagging, and leaving the disputed tag out of the new scheme is
a
way to go forward.
I don't have Randy's qualifications, but to me a power station means
potential energy in and electrical energy (plus waste heat) out.
The area on the ground containing transformers that
At 2010-01-18 18:31, Randy wrote:
Avoid using power=station (although it would be my preferred term) as a
misdefined term which, when properly used in according with the wiki, is
misused in accordance with common English understanding (acknowledging the
possible blur in the German usage).
Use
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com writes:
2010/1/19 Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net:
Well, I guess he meant physical in the sense of a physical object -
something you can touch, see and has a volume and mass.
Ummm... electrons have mass...
But electrons are not power. If you want
Am 19.01.2010 05:54, schrieb Stephen Hope:
I wouldn't be so worried about it except for the fact that we use
English tags exactly so that you can make a good guess as to what the
data means without having to go to a lookup table. When almost all of
the tags are readable, then an incorrect tag
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Ulf Lamping wrote:
d) I don't think it's a good idea to change a tag description two years
after it was documented, because the wording is slightly wrong for
some parts of the english speaking world. Because doing so is an
annoyance for anyone involved and the wording
According to the wiki map features table, a power=station is A
tag for electricity stations. Wires from power lines come in or go out
here.
Two questions:
1) Does everyone use it this way? Without having looked at the table,
I would have guessed that a power=station was a power plant (ie, a
coal,
32 matches
Mail list logo
