On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 23:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
No. We only create relations when the ref tag is not sufficient. We
don't recommend that relations be created for roads otherwise, and
anyone doing anything with the data should not expect relations to be
there.
How would you define
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
the ways - why?
He drove by, and saw a different ref
Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
the ways - why?
He drove
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
it as I wrote in previous email. Remove the ways from the current
relation and add the correct ref tag
2012/7/31 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de:
If you ever worked with mappers who do mapping in their spare time and are
not digital natives, programmers or database geeks, you will have seen some
who don't touch stuff as soon as it's too complex: Better keep the wrong
data than to break
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 09:31 AM, Paweł Paprota wrote:
No. We only create relations when the ref tag is not sufficient. We
don't recommend that relations be created for roads otherwise, and
anyone doing anything with the data should not expect relations to be
there.
How would you define sufficient
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and
Paweł Paprota wrote:
The recommendation of using relations in this case is just to kick
off the whole thing and define some base line for collaboration -
not because I desperately am itching for fixing some technical
design problem in OSM.
In theory there is certainly a logic to using
Peter Wendorff wrote:
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
it as I wrote in previous email. Remove the ways from the current
relation and
Hello,
first of I'm sorry for a bit longer mail, but this is just another
example of what gets me worried about the future of OSM.
This thread is another one of those, where someone came to discuss a
specific problem and proposed a solution, a solution that changes a few
old things. I fear that
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
This is actually not an argument against any tagging proposal,
but argument for improving relation handling in editors.
I don't think anyone's arguing with that.
But are you offering to do the coding? Because someone has to.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
This thread has prompted me to look at the ferry routes around the UK,
and why only certain one are working.
The biggest problems I have found, and so far fixed, are not the ferry
routes themselves but the access within the ports. A lot of access roads
have been tagged to prohibit access (private
Actually almost any proposal containing relations is criticised from
this perspective (relations being too complex/complicated for
mappers).
You say someone has to do the coding, I disagree. It has already been
done. JOSM with RelationToolbox plugin and, as Petr says, Merkaartor
are handling
At the same time there are gates and the access is usually not free
for everyone. So access=yes is in fact wrong in some cases. Something
like access=customers (passengers of the ferry) might be the middle
ground acceptable for both sides.
Not knowing how different routers use access I believe
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc wrote:
There are several ways to tag landcover with existing tags but if we where to
define a new tag for grass along the lines of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
Why ? We have 1.066.000
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Petr Morávek [Xificurk]
xific...@gmail.com wrote:
What worries me is that very often in threads like this, two arguments
and their variations against the change come up.
1) You are a bad, because you try to impose your preferences on others.
no you are not
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:41 PM, LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually almost any proposal containing relations is criticised from
this perspective (relations being too complex/complicated for
mappers).
If you explain OSM to an average newcomer, not a geek or a s/w dev:
- yes,
When you search wiki for grass, you get landuse=grass. When you type
grass in JOSM's preset search box, you get landuse=grass. Potlatch
does not offer any direct way to tag grass. landuse=grass was probably
used before anyone thought about the difference between landuse and
landcover (in osm
Am 31.07.2012 22:50, schrieb LM_1:
Not knowing how different routers use access I believe that ways
marked as access=customers should be routed with some sort of warning.
The same goes for access=private. Quite commonly the real final
destination would be in some limited access area and so
Nobody suggests that all information is immediately transferred to
relations.But in this particular case where one real-world linear
objects is represented by many OSM primitives (better yet if these
primitives are common for more objects), relations seem to be the
clearly right way to go.
I think access=fee, or access=yes + fee=yes would be appropriate. How do
access=fee compare with access=customers in existing usage? (I tried to
look it up myself on tagwatch, but my phone didn't like it much)
On Jul 31, 2012 5:59 PM, Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de wrote:
Am 31.07.2012
21 matches
Mail list logo
