Graeme,
Are aboriginal lands already in OSM as boundary relations? I believe there
is some debate about whether to use boundary=protected_area or
boundary=aboriginal_lands?
I know that many Reservations in the USA are still yet to be mapped, though
the data should be available from the government.
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 at 08:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> I speak with a couple of people on other forums, one who manages the
> stores in some of these communities in the Northern Territory & Western
> Australia, & the other was Head Nurse in a local hospital, so I'll bounce
> the question of
I started a draft proposal focused on the use of the language tag as a
default for names.
I'm inclined to use a tag that is clearly limited to verifiable features of
human geography. The terminology should also show that the tag is meant to
be used in this database to help interprete name=* tags i
Graeme,
If the level 2 admin_boundary is tagged, it wouldn't be strictly necessary
to tag each level 4 (State/Province) boundary if all are the same as the
national level.
Thank you for bringing up Aboriginal / Native American / First Peoples /
Minority Ethnic Group language communities. I would s
this would also be useful for „micromapping“, e.g. the tag could be added to
places like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5314074411
(ignore the position for the purpose of this discussion)
currently you can’t see it is a place where English is spoken.
Or less „famous“ features like embassies
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 at 23:14, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Would "language:en=yes" be enough for the mainland USA? Or
> "language:en=main"; "langauge:en=majority"?
>
I was wondering the same thing for Australia? The official language is
English so the level 2 (1 ?) admin zone would be tagged langua
Good points everyone!
Thank you for the link, I'm sorry that I missed the April discussion (It's
difficult to search these lists). But I’m glad to see that this is not a
novel idea. It looks like some of the same issues came up, and tagging
admin boundaries was the best solution, though places cou
2018-09-14 11:49 GMT+02:00 Lionel Giard :
> But i recognize that i have probably over-extended the definition with its
> use for the "simple" parking. Do you think i should remove the relation for
> the 'simple' parking that are "only on the surface" and all contained into
> the amenity=parking po
You are right in that in regards to KISS, i was not seeing it as being more
complex but easier to interact with the parking_space elements via editor
(but that was personal preference for sure). I was also following the
description here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking
sent from a phone
On 14. Sep 2018, at 10:18, Colin Smale wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-14 08:47, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>>
>> I'd go for a mixed approach - tag the (largest useful) administrative
>> boundary first, and then allow lower level admin boundaries and finally,
>> place nodes, to override th
On 2018-09-14 08:47, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'd go for a mixed approach - tag the (largest useful) administrative
> boundary first, and then allow lower level admin boundaries and finally,
> place nodes, to override the default.
Sounds good! Let's use that approach for e.g. maxspeed as well. It l
sent from a phone
On 14. Sep 2018, at 08:40, OSMDoudou
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> I’m hardly using the site relation because you can express almost everything
>> spatially (a (multi-) polygon for the site
>
> Can you give a link to such an example ?
every area
12 matches
Mail list logo
