2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them
landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles)
Am 29.01.2011 13:33, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
2011/1/29 John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them
landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
and just like previous threads I'm still to be convinced we need
landcover=*, I just don't see the point of introducing a 3rd type that
only serves to confuse things.
basically the idea was that natural could be restricted to
geographical
On 29 January 2011 23:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be
used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it
is: The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which
can be
2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded
beyond highways
can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
surface used for something different
On 30 January 2011 00:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
also from a data consuming e.g. rendering point of view I see more
disadvantage then advantage to not separate landcover as a feature
from surface as an attribute to highways.
Can you expand upon that with a less vague
On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873
That was the follow up etc, I can't find the original thread, however
it would have been about the same time.
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873
you are pointing me to an open ticket for which there
On 30 January 2011 01:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Come on, it was never expanded, you would like it to be expanded.
You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see
landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people.
As for expansion, you
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see
landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people.
It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while
landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree
On 30 January 2011 03:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while
landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree that sand is a good
value for surface, but at the same time there could be
landcover=trees.
Isn't there
On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
I could
also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well).
Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense.
even though this creates
Steve Bennett stevagewp@... writes:
IMHO there are some subtle differences between these concepts:
surface=rock
landuse=rock
natural=rock
The first to me suggests that the ground beneath some other feature,
like a path or a park, is rock. surface=* is almost always a
supporting tag,
13 matches
Mail list logo
