Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > > 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > > How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in > a country based on OSM-data ? > > > I would start from something like: total area of area covered by > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On 13/06/18 07:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On 13 June 2018 at 06:54, François Lacombe > wrote: Hi Warin, 2018-06-12 11:52 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: What about calling them an 'exchange'

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 12/06/18 22:59, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To me, a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 or

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relation. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 01:11 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 11. Jun 2018 23:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel wrote: > >> The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a >>

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

If a country's community decided to adopt one tagging method of forests, wood and tree areas, and retagged all existing usage accordingly, more could be done with (answered by) the data for that country. As it stands, I don't see that happening in any country any time soon. Especially

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On 13 June 2018 at 06:54, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Warin, > > 2018-06-12 11:52 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > >> >> What about calling them an 'exchange' ... though it could be confused >> with money - foreign currency trading etc. >> So umm 'communication exchange' ? >> > >

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in > a country based on OSM-data ? > I would start from something like: total area of area covered by landuse=forest and natural=wood after

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

Hi Warin, 2018-06-12 11:52 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > What about calling them an 'exchange' ... though it could be confused with > money - foreign currency trading etc. > So umm 'communication exchange' ? > Exchange is a good input, thank you telecom=exchange can't really be

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To me, > a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 or > maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10. > A group is

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-12 11:37 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote: > >> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not >> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often >> called "Xyz Forest" >> >> >> interesting, can you give a real world

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

While I'm in favour of the landcover tag, landcover=trees is also not really true. In most forests areas I know, trees do no occupy all the space. There is plenty of room for grass, green plants and bushes on the ground. In some cases there is no other vegetation and it's just sand (or ground).

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

The main idea that i got for barrier=retaining_wall is to indicate that between the lower ground and the upper ground, there is a retaining wall preventing the movement to got this way (most probably, car or bicycle can't go through the retaining wall easily, as it act like a small "cliff").

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Anton Klim wrote: > > Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many > conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably > won't work. > I know you have already said you think a waiting room is different from your

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified. I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass, trees, scrub,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

Indeed, I am myself somewhat opposed to a qualifier for each type of lounge out there in the main key. Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably won't work. In light of this, to avoid ambiguity and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On 12/06/18 19:26, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:51 PM, François Lacombe mailto:fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>> wrote: Could someone confirm that point to point or GPON fibre networks are connected to a telephone exchange building too? I think that's a reasonable

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not >

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not > > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often > called "Xyz Forest" >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:51 PM, François Lacombe < fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: Could someone confirm that point to point or GPON fibre networks are > connected to a telephone exchange building too? > I think that's a reasonable assumption that will rarely be incorrect. Fibre was first

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna

On 11.06.2018 10:29, Rory McCann wrote: > I suggest adding `sauna=gay`, for a gay bathhouse. "gay" is a > simplification since many men who have sex with men visit them (not just > gay men). `sauna=msm` sounds clinical and might be not obvious to data > users. > > In some countries (like Germany)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On 12/06/18 17:53, Philip Barnes wrote: On 11 June 2018 22:57:13 BST, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On 12 June 2018 at 00:21, Philip Barnes wrote: On 11 June 2018 14:58:59 BST, Kevin Kenny wrote: For example my town has a largeish building, They're not necessarily 'small' buildings,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On 11 June 2018 22:57:13 BST, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >On 12 June 2018 at 00:21, Philip Barnes wrote: > >> >> >> On 11 June 2018 14:58:59 BST, Kevin Kenny > >> wrote: >> >> >> For example my town has a largeish building, >> > >> >They're not necessarily 'small' buildings, the way the Wiki

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

Nobody but me voted yet, so I did some more cleaning of the page. There was still a mention of potty_area and there were some suggested extra tags that are unnecessary because they already exist in some form. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

11. Jun 2018 23:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org : > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel <> bhou...@gmail.com > > > wrote: >> The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a relation >> that has similar semantics to turn