Simon Wüllhorst wrote:
I was a bit confused about the inconsistent usage of landuse and natural tag.
Sometimes it’s not clear why there is used the natural or landuse key.
Landuse and natural tags have different keys, so that
you can have both; they describe different properties.
It's just that
Most ports handle many different types of cargoes, so a single value is
insufficient. It would be better to tag the individual terminal objects
within a port with a type rather than assign a type to the port object.
___
Tagging mailing list
We could use a single polygon per terminal tagged as in the proposal
(similar to other landuse types) if we need to go in detail. If needed
using also multiple values (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon)
If you read the page you will see that it pretty much says: DON'T USE
Hi,
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing
natural=peak tag:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak
This is my first attempt to define OSM features.
***
BTW - my mail was awaiting for admin approval too long, so I canceled it
and now I post it
2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing natural=peak
tag:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak
This is my first attempt to define OSM features.
I am not sure this is something we'd want
Am 08.07.2014 17:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl
mailto:dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing
natural=peak tag:
Am 08.07.2014 17:52, schrieb fly:
Am 08.07.2014 17:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl
mailto:dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing
natural=peak tag:
W dniu 08.07.2014 16:14, SomeoneElse napisał(a):
Currently taginfo suggests almost no usage of peak like this
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/peak#values
Yes, but that's exactly where the problem is: I think people are simply
cheating now. =} They see no other peak tags in wiki, so
On Tuesday 08 July 2014, fly wrote:
Sorry forgot the links:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/key:prominence
This can be calculated automatically in principle
Calculating relief features from a DEM is doable. Naming them is not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
This proposal is not a bad idea: refining an existing tag can't do no harm.
However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of rendering
examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the renderer
render and the cartographer style the map, and trust them to understand
W dniu 08.07.2014 18:50, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
the tag, i.e. I would deliberately choose natural=peak for all kind of
peaks and hilltops regardless their (geological) history. If someone
took off some stones from a natural peak it would become a man made
peak for you and you'd tag it
Apologies if this is the wrong list, I'm new to the community.
On the wiki talk page for tracktype [1] there is some discussion from
Australians of this property not properly reflecting road usability. Here
in desert New Mexico I am working on significantly improving mapping of
tracks, and I have
Hello Jesse,
welcome to this list. This is indeed the right list to post this type of
questions.
However, this question has popped up every few months the past year and so
far so consensus has been reached. You can always search the tagging
archive and you'll find threads such as
The combination of tracktype, surface and smoothness could fit the bill.
However smoothness values are ill-defined and would need more objective
classification, but they also refer to things like high-clearance vehicles
see:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
On 8 July 2014
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:25, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
I agree, man_made=mound isn't a bad idea.
Great, feel free to make such amendments!
My original proposition is rather wide, since I'm not familiar with many
types of terrain objects and don't want to pretend I get the whole
picture.
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:04, yvecai napisał(a):
However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of
rendering examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the
You don't even realize how sad is this observation for me...
What is the role of writing documentation than - and
Jesse, you are very welcome !
I have campaigned on this topic a couple of times but without really
achieving any consensus. Chief problem is some people's fear of
'subjectiveness'.
I don't really care exactly how it is done as long as we end up with a
clear model advising people whether or not
Daniel, I don't know about standardization of rendering, but I would say
the advice on the wiki is followed by OSM mappers much more often than some
veterans think.
2014-07-08 20:05 GMT-03:00 Daniel Koć dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl:
W dniu 08.07.2014 20:04, yvecai napisał(a):
However, if
W dniu 09.07.2014 2:56, John Packer napisał(a):
Daniel, I don't know about standardization of rendering, but I would
say the advice on the wiki is followed by OSM mappers much more often
than some veterans think.
Still there are some notable cases when they're not. I wouldn't be
interested in
20 matches
Mail list logo
