2014-09-04 21:24 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-478741-galleryV9-axic.jpg
I hope we agree that these shouldn't be tagged as natural=tree?
Yes, because the material is not natural.
The supposedly artificial cliffs are of natural material.
2014-09-04 21:19 GMT+02:00 Zecke z...@saeuferleber.de:
Not totally correct. Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they
are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the
contour will be mapped as a line and that part coincides with the slope.
IMHO you can't
On 03.09.2014 14:25, Zecke wrote:
Currently in OSM we have two tags to describe some kind of slope that also
get rendered in the mapnik chart and a couple of others:
natural=cliff
embankment (in the form man_made=embankment (feature) and embankment=yes
(attribute))
Is this categorisation
Am 04.09.2014 15:55, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
This is only possible if the man made embankment is inside a larger natural
slope. So the embankment is not as notable a landscape component as compared
to freestanding embankments in the plains.
I'm dealing with spoil heaps. These are man_made
2014-09-04 15:55 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
There's the question whether natural is appropriate as there are also
man
made steep slopes.
I think that we do not need that kind of differenciation. There are also
man
made water areas and trees, and we are doing fine without
On 04.09.2014 16:46, Zecke wrote:
I'm dealing with spoil heaps. These are man_made but that's not the problem
here.
For spoil heaps, man_made=spoil_heap has been suggested. They have little in
common with embankments.
A spoil heap is often partially
limited by more or less steep slopes. I
On 04.09.2014 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
There's the question whether natural is appropriate as there are
also man made steep slopes.
I think that we do not need that kind of differenciation. There are also
man
made water areas and trees, and we are doing fine
Am 04.09.2014 20:54, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
By the way, embankment=left/right won't work for spoil heaps, because
they are not linear features.
Not totally correct. Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when
they are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part
of
On 04.09.2014 21:24, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 04.09.2014 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I agree in so far as from one point of view we could have a tag that only
describes the shape without referring to natural or man_made (who or why
something is there). But I wouldn't recommend the
On 04.09.2014 21:19, Zecke wrote:
Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they
are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the
contour will be mapped as a line
This does not sound right. Spoil heaps are areas and should be mapped as
such, or abstracted to a
Am 04.09.2014 22:09, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
On 04.09.2014 21:19, Zecke wrote:
Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they
are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the
contour will be mapped as a line
This does not sound right. Spoil heaps are areas
I suppose one could map both the spoil heap as a whole, as an area, and also
the crest, as a line. The crest would be useful as a landmark, from a distance.
The footprint of the spoil heap would be useful as a landmark, at close range.
My impression is that no one would likely try climbing the
Currently in OSM we have two tags to describe some kind of slope that
also get rendered in the mapnik chart and a couple of others:
natural=cliff
embankment (in the form man_made=embankment (feature) and embankment=yes
(attribute))
Is this categorisation sufficient for any type of slope?
Il giorno 03/set/2014, alle ore 14:25, Zecke z...@saeuferleber.de ha
scritto:
Currently in OSM we have two tags to describe some kind of slope that also
get rendered in the mapnik chart and a couple of others:
natural=cliff
embankment (in the form man_made=embankment (feature) and
14 matches
Mail list logo
