Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
Am 25.09.2014 11:48, schrieb Pieren: I think the main issue raised in this thread is to decide if each data consumer can decide alone what surface is paved or not (using this "surface" key and its hundreds values) or if we are able to find a common definition stored in the osm db (using this "paved" key). With the first option, the "paved" attribut can be inconsistent between applications. With the second option, the "paved" attribut is subject of personal interpretations from the contributors but this could be moderated when the surface key is also present. Definitely now we all know that there are different opinions for e.g. gravel as paved or unpaved at mappers and consumers. And where is the benefit to manifest the paved/unpaved meaning in the database? Beside edit wars I see absolutely nothing ... I vote for inconsistencies between applications - and not between mappers! A second tag would not change the mind of a consumer about the meaning ... Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] name and brand tags
It's not uncommon that actually the brand (e.g. Texaco) is being used on either operator, or brand, or name. Only the latter is rendered, which can be logical as in common speaking one easily says: I'll fill my car up at the next Texaco' rather than saying 'I'll fill my car up at the fuel station of Mr. xxx' Due to the current Mapnik rendering I often use name where it's actually the brand (yeh, I know, it's tagging for the renderer) 2014-09-25 4:34 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > I'm pretty sure operator=Batman wouldn't work for name=Batman's Good Food, > which is brand=Phillips 66... > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Richard Welty > wrote: > >> >> On 09/24/2014 10:22 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: >> >>> Besides in my experience petrol stations do have a name, it may not be >>> obvious until you are close to the shop. Other than supermarket petrol >>> stations, the name of the petrol station will appear on your receipt, not >>> the name of the oil company. Phil (trigpoint) >>> >> >> true, but are we better off with that in operator= than in >> name= ? >> >> richard >> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Pee Wee wrote: > No it not a language problem or a dictionary issue. It's about an OSM data > consumer (openfietmap) that thinks it is important to for cyclist to know > what type of paving can be expected. Paved, unpaved and semi-paved to keep > it simple. I think this is OK and it works for me. I think the main issue raised in this thread is to decide if each data consumer can decide alone what surface is paved or not (using this "surface" key and its hundreds values) or if we are able to find a common definition stored in the osm db (using this "paved" key). With the first option, the "paved" attribut can be inconsistent between applications. With the second option, the "paved" attribut is subject of personal interpretations from the contributors but this could be moderated when the surface key is also present. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood
These are all rendering questions that should be discussed separately from tagging, as there can be many different map styles being created for different purposes. johnw wrote on 2014-09-25 Or make Highway=trunk a little brighter green, so it stands out against the wood even more. johnw wrote: If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees on the ground", then the current implementation of forest - the bright green with tree markers - should probably use the same color of "wood" green, as they are all just a large amount of trees. The forest still uses the the tree icon overlay, to show usage, just like Nature Reserve has the NR overlay, or Zoo with the Z overlay. If we're gonna seperate conditions on the ground from usage, then it seems that having a single color that means "trees" is a good idea. That would also free up a more visible green for another use on the map, maybe something distinctly manmade, like crop=rice, crop=corn, crop=vegetable, etc. (and leave the brown for wheat). Just an idea. There are large sections of cleared and replanted cedars here in Japan, and it is actively logged - so it has a different land use - but it is al just hills covered with trees. The only time most people notice or care about the difference is in winter, when the cedars stay dark green and the native mixed maple forest loses it's leaves - the mountains become grey and black striped. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
