On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:19:52 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places
> in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality
> is usually used for features that could be tagged with a more specific
> tag.
>...
> Out
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 03:35, Michael Patrick wrote:
> our map would look like this :-) http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj
>
That's an amazing image, thanks Michael.
I take it that's the home location of all OSM contributors?
I'm surprised that India & especially China (where I thought OSM was
banned?)
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:44:33 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 17. Apr 2019, at 06:55, Joseph Eisenberg
> > wrote:
> >
> > I searched taginfo for "tableland", "table_land", "table-land",
> > "plateau" and "mesa".
> >
> > There are 94 natural=plateau and 3
Apr 17, 2019, 7:34 PM by geodes...@gmail.com:
> > ... As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> > surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> > usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> > is otherwise
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 19:11, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> I don't think there's an English English term for them -- England
> barely has any topographical relief at all. They even had to import
> "mountain" from the French.
The UK does have some topographical relief but not any plateaus that I can
W dniu 17.04.2019 o 21:47, Mateusz Konieczny pisze:
> Apr 17, 2019, 7:34 PM by geodes...@gmail.com:
>
> If everyone on Earth joined OSM and limited their mapping
> to their own local knowledge using that rule of thumb, our map
> would look like this :-) http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj
>
Nice
I originally thought that just using the existing tag natural=plateau
was easiest, but a couple people have been in favor of using 2 new
tags.
1) natural=butte for hills with small flat tops surrounded by cliffs,
where the width of the flat area is less than the height of the hill.
Wikipedia: "
On 18/04/19 00:02, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
I believe many people are using natural=peak to add the name of
plateaus / mesas / tablelands.
Yes, that is definitely the case for buttes and small mesas - but then
again these are features that
>
> On Apr 17, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> I reacted to the comparison with a bridge.
> I guess there will be no consensus.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
it follows the current footway=crossing + crossing=* tagging scheme, so
instead of:
highway=footway
footway=crossing
> I checked the local situation, and found the following:
>
> Spring Valley: is it a valley? No, it's a former rural railway stop.
It’s not also a valley? It’s common for “XXX Valley” to be 3 related
features which can be mapped with 2 or 3 nodes if they are not exactly
centered at the same
The only place I remember using locality is where a new very large (roughly
5x5KM) feature has been created by completely removing the original hamlet and
building a very large flood control feature made of several individually named
features, which also contain parks, golf courses, airstrips
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:55 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> is otherwise verifiable of
sent from a phone
> On 17. Apr 2019, at 11:34, Sven Geggus wrote:
>
> Your suggestion would not allow for tagging a site like this:
> tourism=camp_site
> camp_site=camp_pitch
This combination, with the semantics you have in mind, on the same object,
would not be possible, on the other hand
On 18/04/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no
physical presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and
current” feature that is appropriate for OSM rather than a historical
map.
If the name is still in present use then
On 17/04/19 15:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 12:21, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have reviewed all the features tagged as place=locality in 2 places
in the USA and 2 in Europe, and found that 3 out of 4, place=locality
is
The several related Wikipedia pages failed to mention Table Mount as a
synonym, even though they had plenty of foreign language terms listed.
American English bias perhaps?
The first hit I get for “table mount” is Guyot: “In marine geology, a guyot
also known as a tablemount, is an isolated
So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing:
* the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the crossing
physically begins and ends;
* the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes
Correct?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 17 apr. 2019 om 05:50
sent from a phone
> On 17. Apr 2019, at 04:19, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> 3) Liechtenstein: 39 nodes. 8 have a word or suffix that defines a
> specific feature like "wald" = wood, "berg" = hill/mountain. I don't
> know German well enough to guess any of the others, or they appear to
> be
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> +1, btw, there are already 226 of these:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch
I object using a generic key like tourism for something this specific as
sub-features of a camp site. Although the existing ones do look like
miss-tagged
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 16:26, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> > @MarKus: Regarding the tagging of islands or lake groups (clusters), I've
> > already begun to use the type=group tag and hope that someone will push
> > OSM-Carto to render such relations in the future.
>
> It will be very difficult to
sent from a phone
> On 17. Apr 2019, at 06:55, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> I searched taginfo for "tableland", "table_land", "table-land",
> "plateau" and "mesa".
>
> There are 94 natural=plateau and 3 natural=mesa.
> I found no uses of natural=table or table_land or tableland or
Josh & others,
I think we need to take a break here from making OSM into a map of
large-scale geographic features.
This is getting out of hand. I vividly remember the endless discussions
about bays and peninsulae. Drainage basins. Now plateaus. I don't
remember mountain ranges in the recent past
On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> [...]
>
> The way OSM usually works is someone stumbles over something in
> reality, with a discernible name or property, and adds it to OSM. We
> are, first and foremost, surveyors.
>
> The larger a feature becomes, the less suitable OSM is for
Apr 17, 2019, 11:29 AM by frede...@remote.org:
> I think we all should stop seeking out one large-scale feature type
> after the other that is "missing" from OSM and think about how to best
> add them. In my view, the fact that these are underrepresented in OSM is
> not an opportunity to
I reacted to the comparison with a bridge.
I guess there will be no consensus.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 17 apr. 2019 om 12:19 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>
>
>
> Apr 17, 2019, 11:21 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated
Apr 17, 2019, 11:21 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:
> So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing:
>
> * the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the crossing
> physically begins and ends;
> * the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes
>
>
Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit :
> tourism=camp_site
> camp_site=camp_pitch
>
> which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_ exist.
indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking
parking=parking_space
___
On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> I believe many people are using natural=peak to add the name of
> plateaus / mesas / tablelands.
Yes, that is definitely the case for buttes and small mesas - but then
again these are features that can be verifiably mapped based on local
And here the idea of a new separate data layer (as in GIS) for geometries
of fuzzy features rises again...
Waiting for its time.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I did not intend to encourage mappers to start adding giant
multipolygons for the Tibetan plateau or the Colorado Plateau. In fact
I'm doing my best to discourage mappers from adding non-verifiable,
huge areas to the database: see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3750
I
Re [1] Grande Cariçaie
Looking at the relation, all I see is “type=group” and name=“Grande
Cariçaie”. If you load the members, you see that each is a way,
fortunately the names include “Reserve Naturalle” so that helps.
But how am I to know why this relation is? Its not a nature reserve or
> I'm surprised that I can't find an established tag or wiki page for a
plateau, mesa, or tableland; an area of raised land that is flat on top:
... Is natural=plateau the best option? This sounds fine to me, as an
American English speaker, but I'd like to know if it's the best British
English
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 23:04, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> ...These would actually be an example of a feature
> that does have a verifiable border, and could therefore be mapped as
> an area by following the top of the cliff all the way around, but I
> don't see any great benefit to doing all that
Le 17.04.19 à 15:30, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> Re [1] Grande Cariçaie
> If it were a type=multipolygon with leisure=nature_reserve,
> it would be clear what feature this name refers to.
But that 'll make a leisure=nature_reserve into a leisure=nature_reserve
and it's wrong because "Grande
Am 17.04.2019 um 13:32 schrieb marc marc:
Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit :
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=camp_pitch
which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_ exist.
indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking
parking=parking_space
Actually,
Tobias Wrede wrote:
> So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic?
Mainly because the other type of tagging is the already established one and
there is no good reason for changing this.
The fact, that campsites with one pitch are not taggable is something I
would
> ... As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> is otherwise verifiable of course. ...
If everyone on Earth joined OSM and
37 matches
Mail list logo
