On 11.06.2013 16:05, fly wrote:
Am 11.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Greg Troxel:
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose:
Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to
be for the landuse of a parcel that
How do we go from here?
Can someone write a summary?
Could someone please state the results in the wiki?
Thank you.
Wie geht es nun weiter?
Kann jemand eine Zusammenfassung schreiben?
Könnte bitte jemand die Ergebnisse im Wiki dokumentieren?
Vielen Dank.
Gruß René
Hi,
On 20.06.2013 00:22, René Kirchhoff wrote:
Could someone please state the results in the wiki?
I have already un-deprecated the tag on the wiki two weeks ago.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
2013/6/20 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Hi,
On 20.06.2013 00:22, René Kirchhoff wrote:
Could someone please state the results in the wiki?
I have already un-deprecated the tag on the wiki two weeks ago.
I had shortly after set the tag status from abandoned to approved, but
someone
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose:
Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to
be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir
and protection zones. (I have an
Am 11.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Greg Troxel:
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose:
Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to
be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a
2013/6/11 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com
This is perhaps not really the right place to discuss, but I think
boundary=protected_area is off. The basic issue is that we (I) are
trying to denote landuse, not boundary. Rendering the inside of a
boundary as an area just seems incorrect to me;
Am 08.06.2013 23:07, schrieb Greg Troxel:
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
But how to we proceed ?
If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do
we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them?
Only simple case are where a water=reservoir
This approach sounds useful.
Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
But how to we proceed ?
If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area.
Do
we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them?
Only simple case are
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:
I'd rather prefer to have the water protection as a different tag then
landuse, something like protected_area, because my guess is that reservoir
protection is not necessarily the only or main landuse of any such area
with obligations to
Am 07.06.2013 15:49, schrieb Greg Troxel:
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:
2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com
We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this
lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is
not
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
But how to we proceed ?
If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do
we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them?
Only simple case are where a water=reservoir is already tagged (either
on the same
2013/6/8 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com
Having been away from this for a bit, I would propose:
Add a landuse=reservoir_protection (or some other name, not in use) to
be for the landuse of a parcel that is used for containing a reservoir
and protection zones. (I have an attitude that
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
But how to we proceed ?
If we agree that landuse=reservoir should be used for the whole area. Do
we need a temporary tag or adding water=reservoir to all of them?
Only simple
2013/6/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com
Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set to
abandoned without any prior discussion on this list ?
Interestingly this seems to be a case of fiddling by admin, as the user
setting this to abandoned is a wiki admin according to
2013/6/7 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
2013/6/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com
Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set to
abandoned without any prior discussion on this list ?
Interestingly this seems to be a case of fiddling by admin, as the user
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:
2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com
We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this
lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is
not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have
I want to call a few facts in mind:
- We have an old attribute landuse = reservoir. This is very much in use.
- We have a proposal Water detail. This was approved in voting by a large
majority.
This proposal includes:
waterway=riverbank (replaced by natural=water + water=river)
On 06.06.2013 23:55, fly wrote:
We should use both landuse and water. The first for the whole area and
the later for the water area.
[...]
Better use boolean (e.g. intermittent=yes/no).
Maybe editors should warn or silently change these tags.
Last but not least my question still remains.
Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de writes:
Because the Water details proposal¹ included the deprecation. It was
even mentioned on this list that the proposal included deprecation -
although learning which tags exactly were proposed for deprecation
required clicking the wiki link iirc. Still,
Am 07.06.2013 16:20, schrieb René Kirchhoff:
I want to call a few facts in mind:
- We have an old attribute landuse = reservoir. This is very much in use.
- We have a proposal Water detail. This was approved in voting by a
large majority.
16:3 is a poor result for voting activity
This
Am 07.06.2013 15:11, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/6/7 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
2013/6/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com
mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com
Last but not least my question still remains. Why was it just set
2013/6/6 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com
The problem with landuse=reservoir is that often there is a situation
where there is a parcel (legal unit of land under one ownership) that
cotains some dry land, often wooded, and a reservoir (water). The
purpose of the land is 1) to contain the
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/6/6 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com
The problem with landuse=reservoir is that often there is a situation
where there is a parcel (legal unit of land under one ownership) that
cotains some dry land, often
2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com
We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying this
lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that craigslist is
not rendering landuse=reservoir so unless lakes have natural=water they
don't show up on the CL maps.
Am 06.06.2013 18:39, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/6/6 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com
We have gotten several notes reported from craigslist users saying
this lake is missing from the map but I think it turns out that
craigslist is not
fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com writes:
When was landuse=reservoir [1] deprecated ?
There was only little discussion on tagging@ about water=* [2][3]. Now
we have to different uses which do not fit together (eg,
water=lake;intermittent ?).
Anyway landuse=reservoir was never deprecated and
Hey
When was landuse=reservoir [1] deprecated ?
There was only little discussion on tagging@ about water=* [2][3]. Now
we have to different uses which do not fit together (eg,
water=lake;intermittent ?).
Anyway landuse=reservoir was never deprecated and has 20+ uses and
might not be exact
28 matches
Mail list logo
