Hi all,
the relation type=waterway proposal was written long times ago but never
formally approved:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway
The relation is widely used as you can see in statistics:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway#Tools
It
Hi there,
the relation type page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet.
Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into
associatedStreet relations?
Often there could be merge several
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
Hi there,
Hello,
the relation type page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet.
Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
the relation type page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet.
Are there any
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
the relation type page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
lists the relatedStreet
Am 19. Februar 2012 10:47 schrieb Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de:
Hi all,
the relation type=waterway proposal was written long times ago but never
formally approved:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway
The relation is widely used as you can see in statistics:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g. there
is this sentence: Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g.
river).
Well,
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:07:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
(we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route +
route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be
route=road)
Oh, and I see also type=address... meh :)
Seems like we'll need some time
Am 19. Februar 2012 12:16 schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, almost all rivers start small and become bigger ;-), but despite
being small, don't they already start as rivers at their spring?
No,
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:12 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should
try to reduce the different types one by one.
Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly to
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett:
The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a
meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do
is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct people to
this one.
As soon as the
hello!
new here. don't know if it's the right place to address this issue, sorry
if i'm mistaken..
my suggestion is: MAN MADE should be called HUMAN MADE
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 19 Feb 2012, at 14:34, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
waterway=riverbank is an alternative way of mapping a waterway=river,
and can coexist with it.
+1, they are actually an additional way of tagging the extent.
I still remain of the opinion that a river starts at its
The place is right, but:
Why?
What good would that change bring?
Lukáš Matějka (LM_1)
2012/2/19 Amanda amanda...@gmail.com:
hello!
new here. don't know if it's the right place to address this issue, sorry if
i'm mistaken..
my suggestion is: MAN MADE should be called HUMAN MADE
On 19/02/12 11:56, Werner Hoch wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett:
The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a
meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do
is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct
Amanda,
This would be the right place to discuss tagging-related topics like
the one you're raising.
Let me start by saying that it is not straightforward at all to just
change an established convention: not only would we need to change
every occurence of this tag in the database, we'd also need
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any
why it is better but don't use a phoney voting process ignored by the vast
majority as a mandate for action.
Voting is a valuable process.
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g.
there
is this sentence: Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and
becomes larger, then use the
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread.
There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are
free to use *any* tags they like.
...
Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how
19 matches
Mail list logo
