Yes, thank you for clarifying that chachafish did not make the changes ;)-chachafish-Original Message-
From: Mike Thompson
Sent: May 29, 2020 4:33 PM
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again
Clifford,Thanks. chachafish wasn't
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:33 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> I see someone has left a changeset comment, that's the right thing to do,
Thanks Andrew. I think two of us have left comments now. If you have a
different or better way of explaining it, please leave a comment yourself.
On another change
I think the wiki already does a good job at communicating this.
iD already goes a step too far calling these "unmaintained track roads" but
if anything that would have prevented people tagging as highway=track just
because it is maintained, so not a factor in this case.
I think the default
Clifford,
Thanks. chachafish wasn't the one that made the change, the actual change
set is https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48657332
Mike
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:21 PM Clifford Snow
wrote:
> The user, chachafish, with more edits than anyone else I've seen, 162,466,
> is still
On 5/29/20 17:19, Clifford Snow wrote:
> The user, chachafish, with more edits than anyone else I've
> seen, 162,466, is still adding features. chachafish has a history of
> commenting on changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply.
More changesets doesn't really mean a whole lot, especially
The user, chachafish, with more edits than anyone else I've seen, 162,466,
is still adding features. chachafish has a history of commenting on
changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply.
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:11 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> I know we just had a similar discussion, but I
I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and more
cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to
"highway=track". For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the
area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been
changed to
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:03 AM Adam Franco wrote:
> Adjacent to Kevin's home state of New York, here in Vermont we have a
> slightly more open private-land access laws. While property owners may post
> no-trespassing signs (access=private) (statute), the default when unsigned is
>
I'd love to see this changed on the wiki. Keeping name=* as unwanted mistagging is a very good idea.-Original Message-
From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Sent: May 29, 2020 12:37 PM
To: "Tag discussion,
strategy and related tools"
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny
Subject: Re: [Tagging] line=*
May 29, 2020, 19:56 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
> Hi
>
> Le ven. 29 mai 2020 à 00:03, Jack Armstrong <> jacknst...@sprynet.com> > a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> I think naming the same thing two times is not a best practice?
>>
>>
> Indeed
> I'd use name=* on rails only if rails actually have a
Hi
Le ven. 29 mai 2020 à 00:03, Jack Armstrong a
écrit :
>
> I think naming the same thing two times is not a best practice?
>
> Indeed
I'd use name=* on rails only if rails actually have a name.
According to this discussion, may I remove the line=* railway chapter on
wiki?
On 2020-05-29 15:46, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit
>> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has
>> an absolute right to determine who
Unfortunately it is more difficult to map properly the minor roads and
ways, in comparison with the major roads. There much more variegated in
appearance, in use, in rules ecc, and, at least in my part of the world
there are also simply more in numbers.
It is also correct that the available sets
May 28, 2020, 22:05 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
> So I return to, 'what's the minimalist set of attributes that we can
> use to guide a data consumer, and conversely, the minimum set of tags
> that a data consumer needs to recognize?' Specifying every attribute
> in excruciating detail is fine
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:48 AM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> We have no 'right to roam' here other than the fact that you haven't
> been trespassing unless you knew or should have known that your
> presence was unlawful, and are legally liable only for damage you
> cause.
Adjacent to Kevin's home state
My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible objects
plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some pieces that have
been completely erased, but of which we have documented knowledge of where
they once were. The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts.
On 2020-05-29 14:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the
>> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you
>> can walk on that footway.
>
> I
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale wrote:
> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit
> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has
> an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except for certain
> cases,
Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> I feel that access=permissive is not entirely useful for driveways. How
>> do you get permission? Is it legally acceptable to walk along the driveway
>> to the house to ask permission to walk along the driveway to the house in
sent from a phone
> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the
> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you
> can walk on that footway.
I cannot see this. To me there is a
Colin Smale wrote:
>> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>>>
>>> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting
>>> the use of the access=private tag here.
>
> [...] It's
On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale wrote:
> [lengthy snip]
>
>> You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be
>> unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of
>> visiting the house.
On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale wrote:
Since we're getting down to splitting hairs here, I'll get out my
microtome. :)
>
> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every
> bit of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner
> has an
On 2020-05-29 12:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale
> :
>
> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>
> I expect this
Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale :
> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing
>
On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
>> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
>> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
>
> Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with
Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 11:31 Uhr schrieb Lorenzo Stucchi <
lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to ask if there is any tag that could be used to map the
> Ecomuseum [1].
>
> They are composed of the main building that could be mapped as
> “tourism=museum” and maybe with a
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this:
> https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3790/10358136313_96dbe07548_b.jpg
>
> the fence is very low and the gate is always open.
That's true. But with situations like that, even lawyers sometimes
Hi all,
I would like to ask if there is any tag that could be used to map the Ecomuseum
[1].
They are composed of the main building that could be mapped as “tourism=museum”
and maybe with a particular value of the key “museum”. Which one do you suggest?
But they also have an area of interest
sent from a phone
> On 29. May 2020, at 08:31, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting
> the use of the access=private tag here.
these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this:
Colin Smale wrote:
>
> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with private ownership. See below.
> I believe that there
31 matches
Mail list logo
