[Tagging] Re : Re : Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread yve...@gmail.com
Remains one question, site=piste or site=ski ? The former is consistent with pistemap tagging, the other easiest to find in the wiki. The rationale about route=piste covering also snowshoeing doesn't really apply here. Is there sites dedicated to this practice only ? Yves - Reply message ---

Re: [Tagging] Re : Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am 04/feb/2013 um 22:54 schrieb "yve...@gmail.com" : > For nordic and downhill, two sites or a semicolon ? That is the question. IMHO put the piste:type on the route relations and put those route relations into a site relation (or group with tags) but don't repeat the piste:type on the gro

[Tagging] Re : Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread yve...@gmail.com
Martin : that's where the type 'site' make sense, it could either be a resort or a 'domaine skiable'. For nordic and downhill, two sites or a semicolon ? That is the question. - Reply message - De : "Martin Koppenhoefer" Pour : "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Objet : [Tagg

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/2/4 yvecai : > Anyway, these site=piste relation members would simply be related by ... > ski. > Minimal tagging would be: >> type=site >> site=piste >> piste:type=nordic > > or > >> type=site >> site=piste >> piste:type=downhill > > Then, optionnally, name, operator, url. aren't there resor

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread yvecai
On 02/04/2013 08:26 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: ... There is always an overpass query for every need :) Anyway, these site=piste relation members would simply be related by ... ski. Minimal tagging would be: > type=site > site=piste > piste:type=nordic or > type=site > site=piste > piste:typ

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Peter Wendorff
Am 04.02.2013 19:00, schrieb yvecai: Janko, to group a bunch of elements into a relation or add same a tag to all these elements is not quite the same. A relation carry a meaning (type), while with all these tags, It's seems to me just a collection that you can find with a query :) (Actually,

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

2013-02-04 Thread Malcolm Herring
On 04/02/2013 18:54, Douglas Fraser wrote: Have design decisions been made? Only the design outline has thus far been discussed. In summary, any feature tagged as a port, harbour, marina or anchorage will have the relevant symbol rendered on the OpenSeaMap Seamark layer. The renderer will co

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Ronnie Soak
2013/2/4 Janko Mihelić > 2013/2/4 Ronnie Soak > >> >> Works exactly as long as no piste belongs to more than one resort. If >> anyone does, you still need to switch to relations. >> I don't know about nordic pistes, but there are definitely lifts for >> alpine pistes that are used by visitors of

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

2013-02-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/2/4 Douglas Fraser : > as for LOCODE and locode, it is an acronym and so I tend to capitalize it. > but if iata isn't... There are LOCODE / locode / harbour:locode / unlocode > tags - what are the general guidelines about cleaning up tag confetti? general tagging guidelines say: no abbrevia

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

2013-02-04 Thread Douglas Fraser
well, I'd like to contribute but I don't want to stomp all over already done work - we have a fairly complete and authoritative set of LOCODEs, including the shipping carrier specific ones (shipping companies feel free to make up their own set of LOCODEs sometimes) so the big question is where s

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

2013-02-04 Thread Malcolm Herring
On 04/02/2013 18:26, Douglas Fraser wrote: The data management issues are important, so I'm inclined to update the wiki page to direct people to OpenSeamap as that seems like a more logical place to keep specialized metadata like this and they'd be more inclined to keep the data updated. OpenSe

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

2013-02-04 Thread Douglas Fraser
I was going to add some text about port terminals to the wiki page - I'll update what I can. There is at least one thing that is incorrect. The data management issues are important, so I'm inclined to update the wiki page to direct people to OpenSeamap as that seems like a more logical place to

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread yvecai
Janko, to group a bunch of elements into a relation or add same a tag to all these elements is not quite the same. A relation carry a meaning (type), while with all these tags, It's seems to me just a collection that you can find with a query :) (Actually, we all know that both are technically

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Janko Mihelić
2013/2/4 Ronnie Soak > > Works exactly as long as no piste belongs to more than one resort. If > anyone does, you still need to switch to relations. > I don't know about nordic pistes, but there are definitely lifts for > alpine pistes that are used by visitors of two ski resorts. > There, I fix

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

2013-02-04 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Doug, Since you're pretty knowledgable about this topic, it'd probably also be good if you could flesh out the harbor:LOCODE page on the wiki ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:harbour:LOCODE). It's part of this big harbour proposal: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Harbour Ch

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Ronnie Soak
2013/2/4 Janko Mihelić > 2013/2/4 Martin Koppenhoefer > >> >> if they don't have a common operator and the resort doesn't have a >> "border" (i.e. it isn't an area but a mixture of areas and routes) you >> cannot map them? Btw.: the OP is asking for nordic pistes, so there >> won't necessarily b

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Janko Mihelić
2013/2/4 Martin Koppenhoefer > > if they don't have a common operator and the resort doesn't have a > "border" (i.e. it isn't an area but a mixture of areas and routes) you > cannot map them? Btw.: the OP is asking for nordic pistes, so there > won't necessarily be any lifts. > Why not "resort=L

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/2/4 Janko Mihelić : > I think relations are not applicable for this case. To me it seems as if you > want to put everything from inside a village in one relation, because they > are all in that village. That's just not how OSM works. Either that resort > has borders, and you draw them, or the

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Janko Mihelić
I think relations are not applicable for this case. To me it seems as if you want to put everything from inside a village in one relation, because they are all in that village. That's just not how OSM works. Either that resort has borders, and you draw them, or the ski lifts and piste have the same

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

2013-02-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/2/4 yve...@gmail.com : > There is already route=piste relations (the colors on the link provided). > This is something else. what kind of objects do you propose would be grouped in these site relations, just the nordic piste or also connected services, hotels, etc.? I guess you want to group