Re: [Tagging] Pool decks?

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A pitch is for playing sport, not relaxation My experience with pools is mainly in a sports setting - lap swimming and water polo in High School. Most schools in Japan have shallow lap pools for the students to swim in fo

Re: [Tagging] Pool decks?

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What makes a deck a pool deck? The proximity to an artificial pool for leisure, and often their inclusion with the pool inside in the barrier=* around the pool. So The pool deck is the flat area inside the fence around t

Re: [Tagging] Pool decks?

On 20-Jun-17 02:01 PM, John Willis wrote: When mapping pool complexes and water parks, often times there is a significant area around the pool, often referred to as the pool deck in the US (I don't know about elsewhere). This is often concrete, and can be almost as much area as the pool itself

[Tagging] Pool decks?

When mapping pool complexes and water parks, often times there is a significant area around the pool, often referred to as the pool deck in the US (I don't know about elsewhere). This is often concrete, and can be almost as much area as the pool itself. For a water park, often times there is a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

sent from a phone > On 19. Jun 2017, at 23:21, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Regarding names of geographic features - these are rarely verifiable on > the ground, especially for natural objects, verifiability here often is > equivalent to "you get consistent answers if you ask locals about th

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

On 19-Jun-17 08:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2017-06-18 17:44 GMT+02:00 Joachim >: Currently we categorize settlements by number of inhabitants, modified by importance. I would rather not open another dimension. The type of of a settlement can be d

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

On Monday 19 June 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > *Ideally* verified on the ground, but yes, other means of > verifiability can be acceptable. However, the OP in this case > explicitly said that "The extent of a settlement is not explicitly > defined" which certainly thwarts *any* kind of verificati

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

Hi, On 06/19/2017 05:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> If you can't point to a sign on the ground, don't map topoynms. > > -1, our criterion for mapping something is that it can be verified, signs are > only a part of it. *Ideally* verified on the ground, but yes, other means of verifiabili

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

2017-06-19 14:15 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm : > If you can't point to a sign on the ground, don't map topoynms. > -1. May be in some urban areas it's usual to find signs for toponyms, but more frequently -mainly in rural and wild areas- the toponyms are in the knowledge of the local people, not in s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

sent from a phone > On 19. Jun 2017, at 15:15, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > If you can't point to a sign on the ground, don't map topoynms. -1, our criterion for mapping something is that it can be verified, signs are only a part of it. cheers, Martin _

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

Hi, On 06/18/2017 06:59 PM, Joachim wrote: > * The extend of a settlement is not explicitly defined > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_geography). This might lead > to disputes Then we shouldn't map it. > For the first two points I present a solution. For the third I thrust > national/l

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

2017-06-19 12:44 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > by the way is wrong. Nodes and areas are two abstract concepts within > OSM used to represent elements of reality. While there are features > that would normally be represented as areas that are occasionally as a > simplified representation mapped

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

On Sunday 18 June 2017, Joachim wrote: > > Detailed proposal with summary tables: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place_areas I have to say i don't quite understand what you are actually proposing with the different scenarios described. Also i have some trouble understand

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

2017-06-18 17:44 GMT+02:00 Joachim : > Currently we categorize settlements by number of inhabitants, modified > by importance. I would rather not open another dimension. The type of > of a settlement can be deduced by processing the landuse inside. If > there is use in a binary (yes/no) property i

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

While I believe that this is in general a good idea, I don't agree with tagging those place objects with admin_level tags. It would lead to more confusion and I don't see why we would need it, or what it would solve (rather the opposite: it would contradict the place concept of a place being someth