Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
2011/9/5 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On 09/03/2011 07:30 AM, sergio sevillano wrote: are we mapping reality or for the router ? The question is at what resolution are we mapping? IMHO we should try to map at the highest possible resolution (our db has a ~1cm limit for coordinate precision, our zoom 18 is approx. 1:1500). Lower resolution data can generally be derived from the higher resolution data. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
Bryce Nesbitt bryce2@... writes: The http://www.mrlc.gov/ Is a partnership of: federal and state partner agencies interested in assisting in either the population of the Landsat database or collaboration in developing the Land Cover database. Which have all agreed on common landcover descriptions, including a code feature for stony ground. A interesting line-up one must say. Here is the latest (2001) definition of the different classes: http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/definitions.html#2001 They have shown a distinct movement from land use-like classes to more physical definitions. The old Bare_Rock/Sand/Clay have been replaced by the simpler barren_land. !!This could be an alternative approach to the tag-name. Use vegetated or barren as tags. Maybe I was to specific when looking/and failing to find a tag for all land of bare rock (stony ground). The vegetated/barren couple could be better. Anyone got any objections on barren, do it have other meanings? /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
2011/9/5 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: They have shown a distinct movement from land use-like classes to more physical definitions. The old Bare_Rock/Sand/Clay have been replaced by the simpler barren_land. !!This could be an alternative approach to the tag-name. Use vegetated or barren as tags. Maybe I was to specific when looking/and failing to find a tag for all land of bare rock (stony ground). The vegetated/barren couple could be better. But you have to see how they define it. The US use barren for Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover. as opposed to the FAO that sets 4% as the limit for vegetated. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
I have no problem with some people just mapping it has traffic lights and others adding more detail, if they feel a need for it. Most people are never going to need (or have the time/knowledge to enter) more than there are lights here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option for more. But if the only knowledge I have is there are lights here, I'd rather be able to mark that than have to fake up some light pole positions or leave it without. Having said that, I do have some questions about marking in detail Should we use different tags for this whole intersections has lights and there are lights in this exact spot. My first instinct is to say yes, so that data users can easily search for one or the other. You could say that any lights not on a way are one, and lights on a way are the other, but what about overhead signals that hang over the centre of the way/intersection? Is there a problem with marking an intersection both ways? Should we mark where the pole is, or where the lights are? Many of our traffic lights hang over the road, with the pole base off to one side. Should we be somehow marking which ways the various signals control? The same pole pole can have signals facing different directions, or just one. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
