On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We tend to explicitly tag whether something belongs to the site or not.
That doesn't make it right.
> Anthony wrote:
>> It's redundant to have the same information
>> expressed twice, and doing so will only lead to conflicting data.
>
> The
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
>>> If you can outline a perimeter, you don't need a relation.
>> Care to elaborate?
> The elements which are within the perimeter can be calculated from the
> perimeter itself.
We tend to explicitly tag whether something belongs to the site or not.
You might, for example,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Peter Childs wrote:
> Indeed, most round abouts have names, even if they are unmarked.
You should better say "In my country, most..." because it's not
generaly the case in mine.
Note that only Cloudmade's lint and JOSM validator seem to complain
about unnamed rou
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anthony wrote:
>> If you can outline a perimeter, you don't need a relation.
>
> Care to elaborate?
The elements which are within the perimeter can be calculated from the
perimeter itself. It's redundant to have the same information
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
> If you can outline a perimeter, you don't need a relation.
Care to elaborate?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lis
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike N. wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 21 November 2009 16:24:23 Anthony wrote:
>>> I don't understand what was meant by "These are also role=access in
>>> the relation." What relation?
>>
>> A relation of "type=site" probably.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rel
> On Saturday 21 November 2009 16:24:23 Anthony wrote:
>> I don't understand what was meant by "These are also role=access in
>> the relation." What relation?
>
> A relation of "type=site" probably.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
It would be good to update the Wik
2009/11/21 Dave F. :
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> If it really doesn't have any
>> name at all, then noname=yes is awesome because it solves the human
>> problem, too.
>>
> This discussion has been flogged to death on other forums, but obviously
> needs repeating.
>
> People are incorrectly marking way
On Saturday 21 November 2009 16:24:23 Anthony wrote:
> I don't understand what was meant by "These are also role=access in
> the relation." What relation?
A relation of "type=site" probably.
--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openst
Paul Johnson wrote:
> If it really doesn't have any
> name at all, then noname=yes is awesome because it solves the human
> problem, too.
>
This discussion has been flogged to death on other forums, but obviously
needs repeating.
People are incorrectly marking ways with noname=yes just because
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Alan Mintz writes:
>
>> With regard to apartment complexes, condo complexes, mobile home complexes,
>> and gated single-family-home complexes, I usually tag:
>>
>> - The ways that cross the boundary line from public street into the complex
Alan Mintz writes:
> With regard to apartment complexes, condo complexes, mobile home complexes,
> and gated single-family-home complexes, I usually tag:
>
> - The ways that cross the boundary line from public street into the complex
> are highway=service*** + service=driveway. These are also
12 matches
Mail list logo
