Hello Paul,
Paul Allen wrote
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 10:38, Axelos
> axelos@
> wrote:
>
> The direction signs are a real problem. An alternative solution is to
>> exploit the destination key
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=destination%3Abicycle
>>
>
> However, it's an
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 11:05, Axelos wrote:
[footpath/bridleway fingerposts]
>
> I have already seen this type of symbols, but never added in OpenStreetMap.
>
There's no defined tag for them (or I can't find it). Which makes adding
them to OSM
difficult.
Always on destination=*, there is the
On 20.01.19 18:06, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> I am also a bit surprised: a common interpretation of the text of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging
> (which is where https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level
> refers to) is that the level tag keeps the level numbering
Hi there,
In the wiki, the level tag is defined to be a 0-based-index so that
level=0 is the ground floor, i.e. at the street level. In other words, a
two-storey mall with no basement will have shops at level=0 and level=1.
This is intuitive for (at least) Europeans, people from Commonwealth
On 20.01.19 14:49, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> 2. generally, tagging definitions that are not intuitive to use (in a
> region) will not be used consistently (in that region), leading to
> ambiguous data.
I believe the high number of (potential) errors is temporary, resulting
from the relative lack of
Hi Tobias,
we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged
structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making
"street level" a not-at-all defined concept. In case of the university
e.g. the main entrance is on level 7, and street level entrances range
from
On 20/01/2019 18:06, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged
> structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making
> "street level" a not-at-all defined concept. In case of the university
> e.g. the main entrance is on level 7,
I intend to put this to a vote starting next weekend, so please take a look
at the proposal and discussion.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, 9:50 PM Tobias Zwick Region| likely zero-based | likely one-based
> --|---|-
> Washington, Philadelphia, NY | 3 |2
> Silicon valley, Los Angeles | 4
Maybe. My point though is that the (un)intuitiveness of this definition
will be a constant source of error because as shops close and new shops
open, the data is changing and thus the potential for error remains.
(With incomplete software support.)
Turns out, it is even a problem in countries
Le 20.01.19 à 19:32, David Marchal a écrit :
> The landcover tag?
you may of course, despite it's not used by osm-carto
(but we don't map for the render, isn't it ?)
> Another?
map with natural=wood for the area with treet
map the scrub area as usual
> boundary=forest_compartment?
i dislike
> “an area considered as a forest by authorities”
If this is a protected or administrative “forest”, you can use
boundary=protected_area with the proper class
But we usually try to map what is “real” and “current”. So if there is an
area without formal protection, that people call “XXX Forest”,
On 1/20/19 11:06, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged
> structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making
> "street level" a not-at-all defined concept. In case of the university
> e.g. the main entrance is on level 7, and
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 2:38 AM Tobias Zwick 2. no calculating forth- and back between level "indices" and real names
>for the levels (for neither the software nor the mapper) because this
>effectively eliminates the concept of indices
>
I use level=* for the machine-readable zero-based
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 07:37:23PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > So from a SIT perspective, the problem isn't that the US (and other
> > places) call the ground level "1". It's that the level below that is
> > called "-1" rather than "0". You could still make it compatible with
> > Simple Indoor
Hello, there.
All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a
forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in
recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, although,
clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are
> So from a SIT perspective, the problem isn't that the US (and other
> places) call the ground level "1". It's that the level below that is
> called "-1" rather than "0". You could still make it compatible with
> Simple Indoor Tagging by adding a skipped_levels=0 tag to the building,
> but this
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal wrote:
> All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a
> forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in
> recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area,
> although,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 10:57:47PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> >> - also the building with "ground_level=G" to define which level is
> >> the ground level. If ground_level is missing, 0 is assumed.
> >>
> > Do we really need a ground level? I think not. We need connections to
> > outside ways
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 16:58, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can come up with two
> use cases for wanting to know which level is the ground level:
>
> 1. Localization
>
> In an application, it is much nicer to be able to write
> "ground floor" (en-GB),
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 10:39:55AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 20/01/19 09:00, Richard wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >renamed it to
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_for_the_needs_of_people_with_disabilities
> >
> >hope it is not too offensive for now and can be renamed later.
> >
> The map is
>> - also the building with "ground_level=G" to define which level is
>> the ground level. If ground_level is missing, 0 is assumed.
>>
> Do we really need a ground level? I think not. We need connections to
> outside ways and entrances.
Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can
On 20.01.19 19:37, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> - a shop on level M with "level=M"
>
> - the mall building with "levels=P2,P1,G,M,1-12,14-99" (the order of the
> levels). If levels is missing, a numerical order is assumed
So essentially, one uses the local level reference in level=*, and
provides a
> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show
a difference between landuse=forest and natural=wood. However, mappers used
these two tags
I've seen a similar issue with a shop in our area
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351561908#map=19/-28.08993/153.45070
The street address is 15 Park Avenue, but the only thing there is the car
park, with staff entry, goods lift & customer stairs & lift, but that
should (?) be level=0 as that
Here's a perhaps-radical set of comments and suggestion:
in any building, there is a set of names (which often but not always
look like numbers) for levels. These are evident in the elevators
(buttons inside, matching values outside) and in things painted on
walls, on room numbers. etc
On 21/01/19 05:52, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal wrote:
All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a
forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in
recently teared down parcels, or scree in the
On 20/01/2019 23:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did
show a difference between landuse=forest and
On 21/01/19 10:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did
show a difference between landuse=forest and
> “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and compare
it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,”
I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the British
variety).
Many speakers of other languages just search for an English word in
On 21/01/19 16:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and
compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,”
I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the
British variety).
Many speakers of
>M (for mezzanine) is often in between G and 2, and often but not always
has some notion of being less than a proper full floor
Speaking of which many editors, users, editing software, tenderer and such
seems to assume levels must be integer which is not necessary to be
correct. For instance, I
32 matches
Mail list logo
