Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
It's unclear if your proposal is opening_hours=SH(summer holiday) or
opening_hours=SH (then you should correct the wiki because the tag
template is using the first version)
IMHO summer_holiday would be preferable because we should
Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road
agreed, but would you say it has a dirt surface?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO summer_holiday would be preferable because we should avoid
abbreviations
... and people have already used the abbreviation SH for School
Holidays (which I'd argue also ought not to be abbreviated for the same
reason).
Cheers,
Andy
How do you define summer holidays? surely on its own it is not helpful.
It will require a database of when holidays are, based on location.
A business which serves multiple local authorities will straddle all those
areas holidays.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 14/03/2014 8:48
On 3/14/14 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road
agreed, but would you say it has a dirt surface?
i certainly wouldn't. i use unpaved as the more generic
term, and dirt or
On 2014-03-13 19:06, Pieren wrote :
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Robin `ypid` Schneider ypi...@aol.de wrote:
It's unclear if your proposal is opening_hours=SH(summer holiday) or
opening_hours=SH (then you should correct the wiki because the tag
template is using the first version)
I
Dear André,
the proposal is now open for voting.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing
BTW, slightly off topic, I still have no clean solution for
fr:covoiturage, which is translated to en:car_sharing by Nominatim.
Agree, car_sharing is not a good
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
Here's my take from an Englishman!
While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all
From another English person, I would say that dirt in British
Indeed- I have no idea what summer holidays are. I know what
federal holidays are, I know what some religious holidays are, but
summer holidays isn't something I'm familiar with.
- Serge
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
How do you define summer
Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in dirt
road?
Earthen road?
Inquiring minds want to know.
J
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com
Did you every think about 00:00-24:00; Fr 14:00-22:00 off
I really do not get your problems as the syntax already allows a lot.
Still do not have any need for open/closed or closing_hours.
One good point about the discussion is that appointment is considered
valid.
cu fly
On 14.03.2014
Hello everyone,
This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my
understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to
specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong
to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I
could figure,
Summer Holidays are when schools close in the summer.
The issue I have is that they vary between local authorities, so seeing opening
times for summer holidays, I have to find out which local authority covers the
area and then visit their website to find the dates of the summer holidays.
Phil
Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or
below some other data. At least to my logic.
From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is rendered beneath
anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0
is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by tunnel=*
So, again : why tag
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:51:47AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my
understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to
specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong
to tag a
On 14.03.2014 16:36, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
That's clearly a bug.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
in theory yes. However nearby is a problem as rivers can be very long.
Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about
the fact that the rivers may now collide with tunnels some hundreds of miles
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer
tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why
not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everything else
untouched
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy
you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered
correctly.
It's not a question of laziness. Setting layer=-1 to the waterway
instead
On 14.03.2014 16:57, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer
tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why
not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:01:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy
you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered
correctly.
It's not a
Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a
range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually
do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river,
obviously.
I don't know why the wiki has a statement against it - it always
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 22:44 +0900, John Willis wrote:
Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in
dirt road?
Earthen road?
Inquiring minds want to know.
There is no usage of dirt road in the UK most, if not all, public roads
are hard surfaced (although the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
in theory yes. However nearby is a problem as rivers can be very long.
Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about
the fact that the
I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
for that. Here's an example:
Given two ways that cross internally (excluding connections at
endpoints), and considering the layer value defined explicitly in
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
That's clearly a bug.
Considering that surface is loosely defined (it can have any value)
and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
rendering of detailed
On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Considering that surface is loosely defined (it can have any value)
and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
low quality (too imprecise) for applications
Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than dirt (gravel is more precise, for instance), it
would be even better. (That's my point: dirt is good, something more
is specific such as compacted, earth, sand or clay is even
better). The editors help you with
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
for that.
validators can check for many errors but if you want to change
anything you
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer
and it was not accepted.
Was that for bridges
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have
On 3/14/14 4:05 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than dirt (gravel is more precise, for instance), it
would be even better. (That's my point: dirt is good, something more
is specific such as compacted, earth, sand or
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
There has
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14,
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at
On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than dirt (gravel is more precise, for instance)
Not when the road is dirt as opposed to gravel.
I live on a gravel road in
How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
where I live in Brazil. (If you're curious:
40 matches
Mail list logo
