LM_1 writes:
>
> What about this:
> Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like
> landcover=vegetation:herbaceous:grass,
...
> Mappers would understandably not be willing to do it all, therefore
> any generic qualifications could be omited if the rest is unambiguous.
...
>
So
On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 19:00 +, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Ferries are a bit like motorways with tolls, but I don't know what is
> used on motorways around the world. Fee=yes?
>
'barrier=toll booth' is used for motorway tolls, and for access to ferry
terminals, these work fine.
The problem I was f
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Ferries are a bit like motorways with tolls, but I don't know what is used
> on motorways around the world. Fee=yes?
Washington State has the largest ferry system in the US. Check out
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/ for details. Some rou
Ferries are a bit like motorways with tolls, but I don't know what is used
on motorways around the world. Fee=yes?
Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am 03.08.2012 um 15:33 schrieb Johan Jönsson :
> It is the third value in the series trees/shrubs/?? I am looking for.
In this context I would like to ask all native speakers: what is a shrub? What
is a bush (not George)? What is used in common language?
Thanks in advance!
_
What about this:
Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like
landcover=vegetation:herbaceous:grass, landcover=herbaceous:herbs or
landcover=vegetation:trees:coniferous
That woudld allow precise specification as well as "something green
grows there".
Mappers would understandably no
Please forget my last mail - I'm too tired to read.
I would prefer landcover=grass over landcover=herbawhatwasit. Simply because I
doubt that many mappers would remember the latter.
Martin
Am 03.08.2012 um 14:42 schrieb Colin Smale :
> On 03/08/2012 13:36, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>> To cut a l
> On 03/08/2012 12:36, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> But on the other hand those "subkeys" are harder for mappers. That's
> why we will not see landcover=vegetation + vegetation=trees and
> similar constructs. Such hierarchical tags have the disadvantage that
> mappers often have to use more than one ta
On 03/08/2012 13:36, Martin Vonwald wrote:
To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we
would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to
landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would
recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs.
Grass is
2012/8/3 Johan Jönsson :
>
> To make my question more clear:
> IF we where to use landcover, what would then the value for grasslands and
> lawns be?
>
> =herbaceous
> =herbs
> =grass
I would use: landcover=grass and (if necessary) grass=herbs
In my opinion it would be easier and more robust for
To make my question more clear:
IF we where to use landcover, what would then the value for grasslands and
lawns be?
=herbaceous
=herbs
=grass
In another context, guess the third:
landcover=trees/shrubs/???
The description would be something like
"Areas where the vegetation is dominated by gra
11 matches
Mail list logo
