On 23 September 2010 08:47, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary
> actually had a name, e.g. "X Y Border", but the river also has a
> different name.
Since it would be almost impossible for a single way along a river to
be a closed area, you
On 9/22/10 6:47 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary
actually had a name, e.g. "X Y Border", but the river also has a
different name.
one of the operative theories here is that in cases of shared ways,
we should be using the higher level
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> I think "one feature, one object" is usually used in the other
> direction: you don't tag the boundary name=x and also put it in a
> boundary relation with name=x. You don't put a fast_food node in the
> middle of a building that only hold
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> As for the specific question, I would say that if the boundary is
> defined by the natural feature, it's probably OK to use one way. For
> example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78384443 is legally
> defined as "...to the water's
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Quite a number of times I've noticed a single way having the tag
> boundary=administrative (I assume having come from the Australian ABS
> import and being part of a larger relation marking some town or
> suburb) but also having waterway=stre
Recently someone noted on the tagging-ML, that curb is AE and the
OSM-style would be kerb. Unfortunately curb is quite frequent in the
wiki (and probably in tagging although I think tagging kerbs is not
yet a well established practise). I encourage everybody to stick to
one of our golden rules and
On 22 September 2010 21:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> They may need to be split later anyway if the river moves (say from
> erosion), but the administrative boundary doesn't. If however a river
> and boundary were split into different ways now then tags aren't mixed
> and cannot cause conflicts later
On 22/09/2010 14:14, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/9/22 Vincent Pottier:
yes. I use the 3d way (drawing 2 ways sharing nodes). I prefer this method
for the reason given : if the bank/flow changes, the border may not.
and you will be happily unglueing nodes till the end of your days
On 22/09/2010 14:17, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Vincent Pottier wrote:
on JOSM :
copy the way (ctr + C),
create a new layer (ctrl + N) and don't clic in it,
paste the way (ctrl + V) (the nodes are at the same place),
put the tags,
merge the layers,
merge the dupl
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Willi wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct
> .. you may read in the Wiki are not a carte blanche for you to change
> everything so that it
> fits the Wiki "rules".
>
>
And, of course, these "rules" include the "code of conduc
On 22. September 2010 18:20 Andrew Harvey [andrew.harv...@gmail.com] wrote:
> If this is the agreed upon thing then it would be great if someone could
> run a script that split the waterway tags from the boundary ones into a
new way.
On 22. September 2010 18:32 Pierre-Alain Dorange [pdora...@mac.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Vincent Pottier wrote:
> on JOSM :
> copy the way (ctr + C),
> create a new layer (ctrl + N) and don't clic in it,
> paste the way (ctrl + V) (the nodes are at the same place),
> put the tags,
> merge the layers,
> merge the duplicated nodes (validator plugin),
>
2010/9/22 Vincent Pottier :
> yes. I use the 3d way (drawing 2 ways sharing nodes). I prefer this method
> for the reason given : if the bank/flow changes, the border may not.
and you will be happily unglueing nodes till the end of your days ;-)
cheers,
Martin
__
On 22/09/2010 13:36, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
With JOSM you can achieve that by drawing a way by clicking on the node
one by one. It will draw a new way using the same nodes.
That is okay for a couple nodes, but is error prone
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:29 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Boundaries aren't a physical object, and they're not properly dealt
> with most of the time in any case.
>
> Waterways is one of the few things, especially where no hi-res imagery
> is available, I actually think they can be shared. Take for exa
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> With JOSM you can achieve that by drawing a way by clicking on the node
> one by one. It will draw a new way using the same nodes.
That is okay for a couple nodes, but is error prone and tedious for
hundreds of nodes (like if you are
Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> I would guess that the correct thing to do is have two different ways
> which share the same nodes, one for the river and another for the
> boundary. But I don't know how to duplicate an existing way like this
> in JOSM.
With JOSM you can achieve that by drawing a way by c
On 22 September 2010 21:19, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> My interpretation of the "One feature, one OSM-object" suggestion
I can only assume that was referring to physical objects, rather than
meta information.
Boundaries aren't a physical object, and they're not properly dealt
with most of the time i
Quite a number of times I've noticed a single way having the tag
boundary=administrative (I assume having come from the Australian ABS
import and being part of a larger relation marking some town or
suburb) but also having waterway=stream (for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/3812806
19 matches
Mail list logo
