I personally like when OSM definitions are linked to other references,
especially a well-known source like wikipedia.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+service:
social service
n.
1. Organized efforts to advance human welfare; social work.
2. Services, such as free school lunches, provid
On 5/11/2011 2:28 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I agree that they're important to map. But they're not administrative units,
and shouldn't be mapped as such.
How do you suggest doing this without breaking the way people expect a
service like Nomi
2011/5/11 Josh Doe :
> Can we begin discussion of this? A "place_level" that allows for
> unincorporated areas, neighborhoods, and the like.
I am not sure that we need a place_level. Such a key would only make
sense if there was a clear hierarchy. Place structures can be
different overlapping sys
2011/5/11 :
> Part of the problem is that neighborhoods, unlike official administrative
> units, or even Home Owner Associations, don't necessarily have agreed-upon
> boundaries. Different people may consider the same location to be in
> different neighborhoods.
then it's a node ;-)
serious
2011/5/11 Flaimo :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare#Voting
I don't see why there should be "service_hours:childcare". Can't we
reuse service_times?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service_times
cheers,
Martin
___
Am 11.05.2011 um 23:01 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the
>>> center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can
>>> still be determined at any point along the road from just the single
>>
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the
>> center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can
>> still be determined at any point along the road from just the single
>> outline area and the way position.
>
> no, if thi
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
> I'm all for creating something else, however I didn't tag it this way,
> this is how the TIGER places import was done, so this affects at least
> the entire US.
Saying it's the way it was done in the single worst import we've done
in the project
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, wrote:
> Part of the problem is that neighborhoods, unlike official administrative
> units, or even Home Owner Associations, don't necessarily have agreed-upon
> boundaries. Different people may consider the same location to be in
> different neighborhoods.
I
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Tagging something wilfully and deliberately wrongly in order to obtain the
> desired visible results is called "tagging for the renderer" and is almost
> universally frowned upon - see [1]... If Nominatim doesn't know to look at
> other objects
Part of the problem is that neighborhoods, unlike official administrative
units, or even Home Owner Associations, don't necessarily have agreed-upon
boundaries. Different people may consider the same location to be in different
neighborhoods.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging]
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Tagging something wilfully and deliberately wrongly in order to obtain the
> desired visible results is called "tagging for the renderer" and is almost
> universally frowned upon - see [1]... If Nominatim doesn't know to look at
> other object
there was a lot of discussion going on over the last two days for this
proposal, but still hardly anyone voted. i think it would be a good
idea if everyone who took part in the discussion would vote, so that
we at least get an impression on the tendency for or against the
childcare value. currently
On 11/05/2011 20:28, Josh Doe wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I agree that they're important to map. But they're not administrative units,
and shouldn't be mapped as such.
How do you suggest doing this without breaking the way people expect a
service like Nomina
that is perfectly possible with area:highway. just tag the road
area:highway=residential for example and the other
area:highway=footway. all values from the highway key are possible (at
least from the roads or paths category).
flaimo
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:36:04 +0200
> From: Si
2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr :
> Flaimo wrote:
> In the example image, "lanes" (in this case: sidewalks) of the road that
> are mapped as separate ways also have their own areas. Currently, I tend
> to instead support one area for the entire road, containing the central
> highway ways and the ways for th
Actually there is a problem here:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/water#values
"water" is already in wide use, but most of the values in use are not
part of the proposal. Maybe some amendmend or changing of the key name
(e.g. water:type seems to be what the proposal wants to achieve:
http://t
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> I agree that they're important to map. But they're not administrative units,
> and shouldn't be mapped as such.
How do you suggest doing this without breaking the way people expect a
service like Nominatim to operate? You're proposing tha
Josh Doe wrote:
>> So unless I'm mistaken, separate
>> areas for the individual "lanes" wouldn't provide more information;
>> they'd just add more clutter.
>
> I think this depends on whether you adopt the "sidewalk as a separate
> way" method or the sidewalk=left/right/both/no method. In my area
On 5/11/2011 2:08 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
I agree, but Burke Centre is definitely not just arbitrary lines drawn
by others. I'm sure there are plenty of CDPs which aren't recognized
in other ways, but many do align with USPS city names. That being said
the main topic here is neighborhoods, which the
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> It's kind of different in that the restrictions apply only to residents and
> their guests, not to people passing through on public roads. The average
> person won't care that they're leaving the area covered by "Sky Lake South
> Homeowner
On 5/11/2011 12:49 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
> But sometimes they are formal, either at the governmental level or
> semi-governmental level (think HOA that has legal rights to enforce.
It's kind of different in that the restrictions apply only to residents
and their guests, not to people passing throu
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> In the example image, "lanes" (in this case: sidewalks) of the road that
> are mapped as separate ways also have their own areas. Currently, I tend
> to instead support one area for the entire road, containing the central
> highway ways and th
Flaimo wrote:
> it has been brought up a couple of times in the german forums, so it
> seems there is a need for mapping the dimensions of roads (similar to
> riverbanks for rivers). the tag itself was suggested by another user,
> but i thought it would be a good idea to put it into a dedicated
> p
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> I would recommend maintaining clarity as to whether an admin_level is
> * official (as opposed to informal)
> * strictly hierarchical (as opposed to geographic/topographic areas)
>
> For example, "London" in an informal sense will probab
Ilya Zverev wrote:
> As some of you remember, there was a
> proposal for water=* tag. It was discussed, voted upon and approved by 16
> to 3 votes. But now there are some enraged wiki editors, one of whom erased
> the whole voting section and reverted status to "Proposed". And the
> reasons, which
On 5/11/2011 11:36 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
No, wait. I put landuse up to the border of the "property", let's say up
to the fence; then there (may be) the sidewalk; then there's the road (I
know that "road" legally includes the sidewalks too; I'm using it here
with the commonly used meaning). Th
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II
> On 5/11/2011 11:15 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>
>> 2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com
>> >>
>>
>>
>>On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote:
>>
>>you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are
>>still
>>heated
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:26 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> yes, you can use suburb for all kinds of subdivisions, but it is not
> really helpful for other then find something for a given name. In the
> case of an actual hierarchy ("is contained in") or a quantitative
> distinction ([neighbour h
On 5/11/2011 11:15 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>>
On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote:
you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are
still
heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mappe
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II
> On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote:
>
>> you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still
>> heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some
>> leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state
>> out is, t
On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote:
you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still
heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some
leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state
out is, that this isn't a part of the area:highway p
you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still
heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some
leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state
out is, that this isn't a part of the area:highway proposal. if you
want to draw it over la
On 11 May 2011 23:04, Richard Mann wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
>> The wiki should be a place to document the various parts of OSM, and for
>> things like software it can be useful. For tags, however, it is getting
>> steadily more and more complex and confusing and
Am 11.05.2011 15:04, schrieb Richard Mann:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
>> The wiki should be a place to document the various parts of OSM, and for
>> things like software it can be useful. For tags, however, it is getting
>> steadily more and more complex and confusing and
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
> The wiki should be a place to document the various parts of OSM, and for
> things like software it can be useful. For tags, however, it is getting
> steadily more and more complex and confusing and less and less beneficial.
I think we need to s
On 11/05/11 12:38, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 11/05/2011 12:19, Ilya Zverev wrote:
I've reverted his edits of the proposal page, but is he right? Is any
proposal with incorrect subject line in tagging@ post (let along those
which weren't mentioned here) automatically invalid?
If so most of map fe
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II :
> The proposal makes reference to landuse, in particular stating that one
> might cut off adjacent landuses at its border. But the two positions on
> landuse are that it shouldn't be cut or that it should be cut at the
> right-of-way line, not at the edge of the roadway
2011/5/11 Ilya Zverev :
> I've reverted his edits of the proposal page, but is he right? Is any
> proposal with incorrect subject line in tagging@ post (let along those
> which weren't mentioned here) automatically invalid?
Well, it is an established convention to send an email to tagging with
"V
On 5/11/2011 7:34 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II:
There's a problem if this is treated like landuse.
it is not "landuse", so there is no problem. There is still space for
landuse=highway.
The proposal makes reference to landuse, in particular stating that one
migh
On 11/05/2011 12:19, Ilya Zverev wrote:
I've reverted his edits of the proposal page, but is he right? Is any
proposal with incorrect subject line in tagging@ post (let along those
which weren't mentioned here) automatically invalid?
If so most of map features would be "invalid" because many
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II :
> There's a problem if this is treated like landuse.
it is not "landuse", so there is no problem. There is still space for
landuse=highway.
> The highway landuse goes
> up to the edge of the right-of-way, and includes sidewalks and and clear
> zones, but your exampl
Hi.
Right now I've had a wtf moment. As some of you remember, there was a
proposal for water=* tag. It was discussed, voted upon and approved by 16
to 3 votes. But now there are some enraged wiki editors, one of whom erased
the whole voting section and reverted status to "Proposed". And the
reaso
On 5/11/2011 5:09 AM, Flaimo wrote:
it has been brought up a couple of times in the german forums, so it
seems there is a need for mapping the dimensions of roads (similar to
riverbanks for rivers). the tag itself was suggested by another user,
but i thought it would be a good idea to put it into
2011/5/11 Colin Smale :
> Of course there can also be parallel
> hierarchies, like police force areas and their districts and subdistricts,
> or postal systems with major towns, distribution points and individual
> postcodes (in the UK these frequently span national borders!).
+1, also think abou
On 11/05/2011 05:27, Josh Doe wrote:
It's been about a month now, and I've gotten some feedback from the
talk page. My thoughts are that we either:
* reuse the existing place=suburb (as the wiki definition seems like
it might work)
* use the new place=neighbourhood
Either way I think we need to
2011/5/11 Josh Doe :
> It's been about a month now, and I've gotten some feedback from the
> talk page. My thoughts are that we either:
>
> * reuse the existing place=suburb (as the wiki definition seems like
> it might work)
> * use the new place=neighbourhood
yes, you can use suburb for all kin
it has been brought up a couple of times in the german forums, so it
seems there is a need for mapping the dimensions of roads (similar to
riverbanks for rivers). the tag itself was suggested by another user,
but i thought it would be a good idea to put it into a dedicated
proposal.
http://wiki.op
48 matches
Mail list logo
