On 18 June 2018 at 09:18, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> You can view notes on the OSM website, no need to go into the iD Editor.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes#Viewing_notes under Map
> Layers > Map Notes.
>
> I've closed that note last night so it might not show up, they show up
>
On 18 June 2018 at 09:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Yep, agree that looks like spam. Googling the company name brings back
> pretty well exactly that data & description, so it's one we could delete,
> but the problem is finding it?
>
> The location on the map is in the middle of the oval at
On 17 June 2018 at 18:39, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi Graeme,
>
> Am 17.06.2018 um 08:24 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick:
> >
> > Others are showing as a note apparently at a location
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1037676 but then it appears there's
> > nothing there to fix
On 17 June 2018 at 18:00, Anton Klim wrote:
> Hi Graeme,
>
> Are you positive the notes were not there previously? Some of them are
> fairly old, and should’ve definitely been in the Notes layer of osm.org
> (which is optional).
> Notes can sometimes be placed by people thinking it’s a personal
If the consensus is to change it to emergency=lifeguard + lifeguard=*, then
I think this needs to be changed in:
1. The wiki
2. Put forward a proposal to do a mechanical edit to change the existing
tags
3. Carry out that mechanical edit
4. Add the preset in iD
I don't think it's far to the
As I've said before, Notes was a good idea, poorly implemented.
Users should be able to delete them. I've never quite understood the
reluctance to allow that. New users are able to delete OSM data on
they're first edit, but Notes have to be protected for some reason. I
get bored of 'The
Agreed, SEO spam and per the consensus in the talk-au thread at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-May/011839.html we
should delete any OSM edits or notes which meet the criteria as spammers
seemingly following the same recipe book without engaging with us.
On 17 June 2018 at
Agreed with others that for things like bus shelters, they aren't really
buildings, so don't think iD should automatically add building=*.
I've been wondering how to tag a rock overhang in OSM, and just found it,
amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter, quite valuable if your out in
the
Le 17. 06. 18 à 08:42, Shawn K. Quinn a écrit :
> On 06/16/2018 11:45 PM, Bryan Housel wrote:
>> Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`?
>
> If this is for bus stop/transit shelters, it would imply
> building=roof at minimum.
some bus shelters are limited to a plastic plate,
it would be
Hi Graeme,
Am 17.06.2018 um 08:24 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick:
> Sorry, copied mixed info
>
> This bit should show
>
> Others are showing as a note apparently at a location
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1037676 but then it appears there's
> nothing there to fix https://www.openstreetmap.
Hi Bryan,
Am 17.06.2018 um 06:45 schrieb Bryan Housel:
> Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`?
>
> The osm wiki page does not suggest `building=*` as a “tag to use in
> combination”
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=shelter
>
most have 4 glass walls. The smaller type in the other picture is more
recent. Not much shelter from the elements in those. I guess that one could
be building=roof, but it wouldn't be much of a shelter without any roof at
all, so I took that as implied.
I have not seen many bus shelters mapped as
Hi Graeme,
Are you positive the notes were not there previously? Some of them are fairly
old, and should’ve definitely been in the Notes layer of osm.org (which is
optional).
Notes can sometimes be placed by people thinking it’s a personal note only
visible to themselves. They also won’t
Agree with the notion that building is implied. In France, public transit
shelters are often included in the cadastral information, and they wind up
being tagged as building=yes + wall=no (through the import) or as
building=roof (after verification).
On 06/16/2018 11:45 PM, Bryan Housel wrote:
> Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`?
If this is for bus stop/transit shelters, it would imply building=roof
at minimum. The shelters here usually have three walls (sometimes only
one wall) with the fourth side being open to the street, plus a
So, after a few days thought, can we say that we've resolved to work on
asking for emergency=lifeguard to be rendered, which would then go down to
lifeguard=base etc?
Thanks
Graeme
On 12 June 2018 at 07:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
> On 11 June 2018 at 17:25, Warin
I tag bus stop shelters with amenity=shelter,
shelter_type=public_transport. In Belgium they are constructions with glass
'walls' and a metal roof. I don't consider them as buildings though.
Sorry, copied mixed info
This bit should show
Others are showing as a note apparently at a location
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1037676 but then it appears there's
nothing there to fix https://www.openstreetmap.
org/edit#map=17/-27.96197/153.40334
Thanks
Graeme
On 17 June 2018 at
G'day all
Just mentioned this on Bryan's iD thread, but he knows nothing about it.
This last week, I've seen "Unresolved note" markers suddenly appear all
over the place - I've seen them in Europe, US & here in Australia where I
know for a fcat that they definitely weren't showing ~a week ago?
19 matches
Mail list logo
