Re: [Tagging] Power poles tower : power vs man_made
I agree with the reasoning behind man_made=pole, but the semantic infrastructure behind osm is not yet strong enough. I think a second layer should be there, a semantic model which says what certain key-values actually mean, and which could be easily changed. The renderers could then be bound to that model, not the rugged key-values. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power poles tower : power vs man_made
Il giorno 17/ago/2013, alle ore 11:03, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com ha scritto: I think a second layer should be there, a semantic model which says what certain key-values actually mean, and which could be easily changed. this would allow for a whole new interpretation of the term map roulette ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power poles tower : power vs man_made
I totally agree with Janko. A meta-tagging model will allow more agility when tag a replaced or deprecated. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/8/17 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com I agree with the reasoning behind man_made=pole, but the semantic infrastructure behind osm is not yet strong enough. I think a second layer should be there, a semantic model which says what certain key-values actually mean, and which could be easily changed. The renderers could then be bound to that model, not the rugged key-values. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and not an area? Boundaries describe an area but you are right that they are not really boundaries, especially if the border lines are not clearly defined The problem is, that multipolygon don't work in 2 cases: - The areas touch each other. - The areas are multipolygons. A multipolygon as a member in a other multipolygon is not allowed. Either we allowed this, or we need any relation which collect these things... You can always split the ways and use the parts tagged with outer/inner (What the renderer do, is not primary. If we find a good tagging, the renderer should follow the tagging, not backwards.) Forget the renderer but think about all software. It is probably easier to use an established system with one more subtag than clone the system and use a new type and at least admin_centre would be useful. Cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Hi, * fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com [130817 17:13]: On 16.08.2013 19:05, Masi Master wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure that boundary is the right tag. Isn't it a border, and not an area? Boundaries describe an area but you are right that they are not really boundaries, especially if the border lines are not clearly defined [..] I'm under the impression this discussion is leading to ever more complicated ideas, due to the problem that the features we want to name on the map are not really clearly defined areas. Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature and tag it with name=*, topo_feature=mountain_range|ridge|valley|... A renderer that wants to display the name should draw it along that way with the length of the way giving a hint about the size of the feature. Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org wrote: I'm under the impression this discussion is leading to ever more complicated ideas, due to the problem that the features we want to name on the map are not really clearly defined areas. +1 Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature or we could simply admit that OSM project is currently unable to map such big features with fuzzy borders... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/17 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw a way along the approximate center line of the feature or we could simply admit that OSM project is currently unable to map such big features with fuzzy borders... +1, a way is surely not a good representation. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Comments of the Reuse proposal (was: Tradeoff)
Am Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:32:19 -0700 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: If ever there was a good use for ;, this is it: reuse:goods= books; household_items; clothes; shoes; pet supplies; pet food; unrestricted; I do not agree. Under this scheme it is not possible to say that only a certain kind of good is accepted but not others. I do not see how one could know wheather the list is complete. Let’s take “reuse:goods=books” for example. It could mean that only books are accepted, nothing else. But it also could mean that books are accepted and other goods as well (which aren’t just mentioned here because the list is incomplete for some reason). And what’s that “unrestricted” in your example, by the way? “unrestricted” is not a good. I don’t know what it means but it looks like it belongs to another tag instead. -- Wuzzy XMPP: wuz...@jabber.ccc.de E-Mail: wuz...@mail.ru ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
