On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 11:28 +1100, Warin wrote:
What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level?
Are 'we' tagging for
What things are? eg highways OR What things are used for? eg amenity
I think its a very good question Warin. Perhaps, at the hart of much
angst amongst OSM'ers.
Am 13.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb François Lacombe:
2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com
mailto:kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.
Have you also voted at
I mostly met them on tennis courts.
For my common understanding, I would be able to break through a net with
a sharp knife while I would struggle to do so with a fence. This would
still fit with material=* but isn't there a difference in construction
between fence and net where the first is free
Hi,
On 01/14/2015 01:28 AM, Warin wrote:
What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level?
There is no basic philosophy at the top level from which everything else
can be derived. It's like evolution - some things are a bit strange but
you can often understand them by looking at how
On 07/01/2015 9:29 pm, althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew your case is more specialized so I feel barrier=net is lacking.
How about
barrier=fence
fence_type=shark_net
Sounds good with me. I'll re-tag the ones I've tagged.
___
Tagging
2015-01-13 11:44 GMT+01:00 althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com:
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
religion=multi looks OK to me, the similarity to sport makes it easier
to remember than religion=all (and it is very likely more accurate, as
all
is too inclusive I guess).
This comes from the tap discussion but has implications elsewhere.
What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level?
Are 'we' tagging for
What things are? eg highways
OR
What things are used for? eg amenity
Explanation? By example;
Highways are used
2015-01-13 6:09 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:55 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
What's the difference between an alley and a motorway besides width?
How it drains, how thick the hard surface is, lane width, paved shoulders,
buildings not
I created a feature proposal on this topic
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ticket_type
I'm happy to get your feedback
Karsten
On 12.01.2015 10:48, althio althio wrote:
This is very related to
amenity=vending_machine (taginfo = 54 000)
with its associated key:
2015-01-12 21:59 GMT+01:00 althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com:
I think they are definitively for worshiping and prayers.
amenity=place_of_worship is pretty clear for me.
also this one:
http://gloria.tv/?media=600653language=o9CtE7uatTg
looks like a wayside shrine, but the title says place
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
religion=multi looks OK to me, the similarity to sport makes it easier
to remember than religion=all (and it is very likely more accurate, as all
is too inclusive I guess).
Some airports REALLY wants to be that inclusive.
a prayer room for all
Hi,
Some places in the wiki mention cycleway:lanes:* tags, and those are
indeed used in a few places (31 uses currently). It seems to me these
tags are obsolete and have been replaced by bicycle:lanes:*, is that
correct? Should I probably mass-replace them?
--
Cheers,
Andrew
+1 to all. Except none in this case was meant to be the default value from
the :lanes proposal.
Am 13. Januar 2015 13:45:24 MEZ, schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:
I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes
2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:
I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes
defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane
and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example.
That's correct. AFAIK it is common
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan
kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
I voted earlier today 'no' to this proposal in its current state and
provided my arguments. But now I'm asked to forward them on this
mailing
I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes defines es
the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane and
bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example.
Am 13. Januar 2015 13:28:22 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me:
Hi,
Some places in
2015-01-13 13:52 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:
+1 to all. Except none in this case was meant to be the default value
from the :lanes proposal.
The default value is always an empty value, e.g. minspeed=|80|50. The
value none might be defined by the main key, e.g. maxspeed=none. If the
main
2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.
Have you also voted at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
?
Yes, as Fanfouer
I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency
On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren
pier...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal -
Voting - Water tap Message-ID:
19 matches
Mail list logo
