On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> not so sure about this. Currently there is really a lot of values in
> surface but (as far as I know) none of them gets subtagged. Instead of
> subtagging we could also keep cobblestone for "sett" and invent
> another value for old cobb
Am 12. April 2012 00:31 schrieb Steve Bennett :
> Clearly the change that was made was disruptive and changes the
> meaning of the 80,000 or so surface=cobblestone tags already in
> existence. I have thus changed the definition back and commented out
> surface=sett for the moment.
>
> Now, some iss
Steve Bennett wrote:
> So, whoever really wants to introduce this distinction is going to
> have to find another way, perhaps "surface=cobblestone,
> cobblestone=sett".
Thank you for dealing with the issue.
Subtagging seems like a good suggestion for making this distinction. We
would also need a
Am 13.04.2012 12:47, schrieb Pieren:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
I would keep it, but make a big hint that these are defaults, that SOFTWARE
can assume.
It should IMHO not be a rule for mapper, that motivates to delete or
willingly omitt these values.
Point is tha
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> I would keep it, but make a big hint that these are defaults, that SOFTWARE
> can assume.
> It should IMHO not be a rule for mapper, that motivates to delete or
> willingly omitt these values.
Point is that editors should support these de
Am 13.04.2012 09:31, schrieb Colin Smale:
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
What would you do with this page? Enhance/complete it, or delete it?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
Just notic
Am 13.04.2012 08:55, schrieb Colin Smale:
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
You sure know how to lower the barriers to entry and attract new
mappers...
Not exactly, but a big catalogue of explicit defaults IMHO does not make
anything ea
Le 13/04/2012 09:49, Nathan Edgars II a écrit :
I think we're talking about two different things here.
(a) An editor (program) automatically applying tags to an object. This
is bad, because we don't know whether the mapper has specifically
verified this, or whether it's just being assumed and
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Just noticed that links to a proposal for defaults -
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Defaults
An example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/934933
Data consumers should check if the element contains the val
I think we're talking about two different things here.
(a) An editor (program) automatically applying tags to an object. This
is bad, because we don't know whether the mapper has specifically
verified this, or whether it's just being assumed and may be false.
(b) Tags on an area that specify
On 13/04/2012 08:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
-10 for adding defaults as a hint for mappers!!!
What would you do with this page? Enhance/complete it, or delete it?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
Just noticed that links to a proposal for defaults -
ht
Am 13.04.2012 08:20, schrieb Peter Wendorff:
> If we would define a set of defaults and mappers follow that set, nobody
> will add "default" values again, and it's not possible to distinguish
> between default and unknown any more.
You have identified a real problem: The distinction between defaul
I think Frederik describes the problem very well here:
http://osm.gryph.de/2012/02/freedom-to-tag and I really like the Tag
Central idea, but as usual it requires that somebody with the right skills
and available time falls in love with the idea. It is probably too late
now, but it might have been
13 matches
Mail list logo
