On 15.02.19 11:03, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
> much older, it was built in 1725:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535
The root of the issue is that two different features (a building, and a
museum
Hi,
On 21.02.19 21:46, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Does this essentially mean that data consumers should treat
> architect:wikidata as an overriding tag?
I wouldn't want to tell data consumers that they should. Depending on
who contributed it, "architect" might have better or worse information
than
sent from a phone
> On 21. Feb 2019, at 21:46, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> Most people won't know/care about licensing or political differences - they
> treat both as "wikis" they can contribute to. After all, people are very
> happy to contribute even to Google maps despite the data not
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:51 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I am not opposing referencing wikidata in general of course, rather I am
> doing it a lot myself, even creating wikidata items from time to time, but
> this does not mean we should _move_ information from OSM to wikidata. E.g.
> not
Am Do., 21. Feb. 2019 um 09:17 Uhr schrieb Topographe Fou <
letopographe...@gmail.com>:
> Agree on the purpose of Wikidata but many OSM features (such as buildings)
> does not have a Wikidata item (only major buildings have one, usually
> landmarks).
>
>
you can always create one ;-)
> I
De: sea...@gmail.comEnvoyé: 18 février 2019 9:43 PMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] start_date variants On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:28 AM Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> wrote:It woul
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:28 AM Richard wrote:
> It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction -
>> often construction starts many years before the building is finshed:
>> Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain
>> are famous examples.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:03:01AM +0100, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have some thoughts in the start_date tag, as I find it a bit too vague -
> meaning start of what?
>
> Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
> much older, it was built in
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, 08:09 Stephan Bösch-Plepelits Do you think a relation with a multipolygon relation as member would work?
> Or would it be better to duplicate the multipolygon relation?
>
A multipolygon can only consist of ways (with the roles outer and inner),
so you need to duplicate the
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 23:55 Sergio Manzi Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to
> the building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building
> itself.
>
+ 1
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Hi Stephan!
Yes, a relation can be made up of a relation: no problem with that, AFAIK.
In your particular case, anyway, I'm afraid there is something wrong:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535 (name=MuseumsQuartier) is tagged
as "building=yes" and also with
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:53:52PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to the
> building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building itself.
>
Yeah, that was the other solution I thought of.
In the particular case
Currently, and AFAIK, relations are the *only* solution for modeling situations
like the one you described...
On 2019-02-17 00:40, Anton Klim wrote:
> not sure if relations are a good fix though
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
There've been quite a lot of discussions lately about namespaces and indeed
current osm tagging is clunky in that regard.
not sure if relations are a good fix though
сб, 16 февр. 2019 г. в 23:07, Sergio Manzi :
> Yeah. The "*other*" solution could be to "*namespace everything*", so you
> could
Yeah. The "/other/" solution could be to "/namespace everything/", so you could
tag building:whatever_property_key_you_want and
amenity:whatever_property_key_you_want, applied to the very same object. But
we're probably too late for that and apparently many seems to hate this latter
solution.
sent from a phone
> On 16. Feb 2019, at 23:49, Anton Klim wrote:
>
> Like in the thread opening email, where there is an amenity that occupies the
> whole building, we put amenity tags on the outline.
I agree with Serge here, when there is a problem where it is not clear to what
the tags
Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to the
building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building itself.
One further benefit is that if the amenity goes you can delete the relation
without disturbing the building...
Sergio
On 2019-02-16
Like in the thread opening email, where there is an amenity that occupies the
whole building, we put amenity tags on the outline.
I generally support adding more granularity to start_date, but feel like
start_date:* might fit better than *:start_date.
Anton Klim
> 16 февр. 2019 г., в 21:40,
Stephan, can you point to any such object in OSM where you find that ambiguity?
I have the feeling that we could possibly discover a violation of the "One
feature, one OSM element" principle [1] in there...
Sergio
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
On
I'm a bit confused by this thread, somehow I have the impression I missed
something (that's why I left TOFU in this mail).
Anyway, I'd like to summarize:
There are many-many objects (most of them buildings - 96%) tagged with
start_date=* - I think, that's great. start_date is quite well
I think those would mostly be historical uses. Considering it’s part of an
abandoned proposal, don’t think there would be much new entries.
Plus, buildyear implies you can specify a year, instead of a date, like you can
for start_date and its possible offshoots.
Ant
> 16 февр. 2019 г., в
Actually building:buildyear is of much more widespread use than
building:start_date:
* https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Abuildyear -> 2051
objects
* https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Astart_date -> 163
objects
that's a 12.6:1 proportion...
The key
I believe there was an (failed? Undocumented?) attempt to make
building:buildyear a thing, but haven’t seen it used for a while.
> 15 февр. 2019 г., в 14:44, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits
> написал(а):
>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:07:09PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>> Sounds solid and already
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:07:09PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Sounds solid and already used quite a bit.
>
> But wait, is it start_date:somekey or somekey:start_date?
>
I would say somekey:start_date, because - in the case of buildings you also
have:
* building:levels=3
*
Sounds solid and already used quite a bit.
But wait, is it start_date:somekey or somekey:start_date?
Tobias
On February 15, 2019 11:03:01 AM GMT+01:00, "Stephan Bösch-Plepelits"
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I have some thoughts in the start_date tag, as I find it a bit too
>vague -
>meaning start of what?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:03:01AM +0100, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> PS: I even found, that people translate 'start_date' by using a language
> suffix (e.g. start_date:fr, start_date:ja):
> - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/start_date%3Afr#values
> -
Hi!
I have some thoughts in the start_date tag, as I find it a bit too vague -
meaning start of what?
Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
much older, it was built in 1725: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535
An option would be to prefix
27 matches
Mail list logo
