To summarize (for the second time):
shop=fish, shop=fishmonger and shop=seafood are not synonyms as fish may
also apply to pet fish and seafood is not covering freshwater fish
shop=winery, shop=wine (shop=wine is a wine seller, where shop=winery is a
winer maker selling his own production)
Hi,
On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and
shop keys is not documented) - amenity=ice_cream (4053)
amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't imagine a lot of
people actually coming up with that
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two
cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is
valuable information.
Janko
2014-08-14 7:29 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
On 2014-08-14 07:29, Mateusz Konieczny wrote :
I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how
these may be mapped (tunnels that are available for humans but closed
for typical
tourists may be mapped as highway=path with tunnel=yes and access=private,
and routes
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this
with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a
cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected
by footpaths is valuable information.
Janko
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two
cave entrances, then information
2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
cave=yes. Other than that, I have no
Sorry, it was supposed to be using highway as key also for private roads.
2014-08-14 12:40 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14
2014-08-14 11:40 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need
Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag and since
payment:website:bitcoin=yes is not, I would suggest a combined usage of
payment:bitcoin=yes and payment:website:bitcoin=yes until the new tag is
chosen by more mappers for their use cases. I'm considering using the
combination for
On 14.08.2014 07:29, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how
these may be mapped
Given that you want to discuss wiki changes, you should start the discussion
before you actually do the changes. You should also refer to this mailing
list
On 14.08.2014 12:40, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Note, I am not a native speaker - maybe it sound terrible
You might find correct translations on
http://www.uisic.uis-speleo.org/lexuni.html.
--
Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
2014-08-14 13:01 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
Given that you want to discuss wiki changes, you should start the
discussion
before you actually do the changes. You should also refer to this mailing
list thread in the comment of your wiki change, or in the talk page. I
received
2014-08-14 12:01 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
On 14.08.2014 07:29, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how
these may be mapped
Given that you want to discuss wiki changes, you should start the discussion
before you
On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote :
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com
mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace
this with cave=yes. Other than
One question.
How would people map a cave?
As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there
is no sattelite imagery for them.
I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now.
2014-08-14 8:22 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14 12:31,
On 14/08/2014 12:18, Dan S wrote:
2014-08-14 12:01 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
...
I am not sure about English terminology. In German, we call natural cavities
Höhlen (caves), and artificial cavities Stollen (adits?). A straight
Stollen with an entrance on each end is a Tunnel
Anita,
Frankly a large majority of the bitcoin edits are unauthorized (and
probably copyright violating) imports. Discussions of website allowing
bitcoin seem to fall in that same category. There have been few
complaints but I think it's inevitable that if the imports continue,
someone will
2014-08-14 13:35 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com:
One question.
How would people map a cave?
As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there
is no sattelite imagery for them.
I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now.
2D Public Domain map,
On 2014-08-14 13:35, John Packer wrote :
One question.
How would people map a cave?
It depends on your definition of how but this could be an answer
http://www.mondesauvage.be/grottes/fr/.
As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously
there is no sattelite imagery for
On 14/08/2014 12:22, André Pirard wrote:
I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes
for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page.
No, it really wouldn't(1).
Cheers,
Andy
(1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like - and yes,
On 14/08/2014 12:35, John Packer wrote:
One question.
How would people map a cave?
(answering in case it wasn't a completely rhetorical question):
One option is the same way that people mapped before GPSs arrived -
accurately measure a baseline and triangulate from it. Obviously it's
payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto tag for a store that accepts Bitcoin
AT THE POINT OF SALE, like all other payment=* tags. What you do is
redefine its meaning to it in some way accepts Bitcoin somewhere.
payment:website:bitcoin=yes on its own is fine.
payment:website:bitcoin=only would
No, that's a bad idea. I believe there's a clear consensus that
payment:bitcoin=yes is not a proper tag for a shop that doesn't accept
bitcoin at its physical location.
/Markus
On 14 August 2014 12:53, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote:
Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag
On 14/08/2014 13:19, Markus Lindholm wrote:
No, that's a bad idea. I believe there's a clear consensus that
payment:bitcoin=yes is not a proper tag for a shop that doesn't accept
bitcoin at its physical location.
I'd fully agree with that. Most of the bitcoin taggers seem just to
be using
2014-08-14 12:24 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pir...@ulg.ac.be:
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two
cave entrances, then information that
Plus, our mapping scheme is limited in its ability to record three-dimensional
spaces. I don't know how we would map this is one continuous passage, but with
a deep pit in the center, so you will need special equipment to bridge the gap.
On August 14, 2014 6:35:52 AM CDT, John Packer
On 14.08.2014 12:47, Dan S wrote:
Well, no-one ever supports new tagging, the question is if it's
needed. But I agree, I can't see a benefit keeping it separate.
Are you suggesting that there are no relevant differences between a
man-made tunnel and a cave? I can think of a lot – naturally
+1 for not using payment:bitcoin=yes if bitcoin is not accepted at the
point of sale.
It shouldn't be a problem for Coinmap to add payment:website:bitcoin=yes as
a new kind of pin. And it would probably make it a much better map.
Janko
___
Tagging
2014-08-14 15:56 GMT+02:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
Plus, our mapping scheme is limited in its ability to record
three-dimensional spaces. I don't know how we would map this is one
continuous passage, but with a deep pit in the center, so you will need
special equipment to bridge
2014-08-14 15:47 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
The reason renderers don't render it is invalid because of one of the
oldest rules in OSM: don't tag for the renderer.
This would be applicable after defining tunnels as man made (in case that
somebody is using this tag anyway because
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:31:28PM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
cave=yes. Other than that, I have no
I agree on the general strategy, but in this case I don't think cave=yes
would work fine by itself as these are underground ways that require to
be interpreted as being underground.
With that it is required to interpret the new tag to handle these ways
in a useful way. Using tunnel=cave would make
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote:
I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature
to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be
applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing
hilly terrain; all of
On Aug 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Richard Z. wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote:
I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature
to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be
applied to railroad crossings, humpy
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a
tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not.
On the whole, yes, but there are some artificial underground cavities
that are referred to as
On 14.08.2014 13:18, Dan S wrote:
I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment
there just a
tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit
well.
No, they do not fit. Caves are complex three-dimenional structures. In most
caves there are
On 14.08.2014 16:54, Richard Z. wrote:
Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion,
a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not.
whether or not man-made is not the biggest problem.
The big problem with tunnel=yes or tunnel=cave is that they only would ever
get
Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without
routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway.
+1
2014-08-14 12:32 GMT-03:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
On 14.08.2014 13:18, Dan S wrote:
I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the
moment
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:49 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 14/08/2014 12:18, Dan S wrote:
2014-08-14 12:01 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
...
I am not sure about English terminology. In German, we call natural cavities
Höhlen (caves),
2014-08-14 17:49 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com:
Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without
routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway.
+1
+1 But as always there are edge cases - for example it may be useful for
routing during preparing a trip.
41 matches
Mail list logo
