Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Hi Martin, Thanks for engaging! I don't think it's appropriate to tag them all as historic=aqueduct. That would be like tagging canals in Europe as historic just because they were built a long time ago. There are active efforts to maintain and restore qanats/kariz in Afghanistan that have been

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no. So where a train forbids bicycle transport then bicycle=no should be applied or some local default of bicycle=no on trains be documented. Locally to me some trains require the

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to > tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or > waterway=canal+canal=qanat. > > There's already 1000 tagged, and

[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Hi all, I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or waterway=canal+canal=qanat. There's already 1000 tagged, and they're very patchy geographically. It's quite likely there's upwards of 100,000 It

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

> a spring is groundwater as well. A spring is "a place where water naturally flows out from the ground". In a spring, the water table reaches the surface. The source of a qanat is underground, at least several meters depth (and often quite far underground), below the underground water table.

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Am Fr., 19. Juni 2020 um 23:15 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > As mentioned on the proposal page, there are 4 criteria, which all qanat > features share: > > >- The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not >a spring, stream or river > >

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

> What about historic=aqueduct The tag historic=aqueduct can be used, since it appears to be used for underground aqueduct segments (as well as the more common above-ground segments). It is briefly mentioned on the proposal page, but it is not part of this proposal since it is an already accepted

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

What about historic=aqueduct should it be applied as well, in case of historic qanats? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

sent from a phone > On 19. Jun 2020, at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > A qanat is a specialized kind of underground aqueduct which is the > traditional way of supplying water in hot and arid climates within limited > distance of a mountain range. while the description reads quite

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 17:07, Cj Malone < me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote: > It's in Facebooks interest to have OSM be the best it possibly can. > Facebook doesn't want to be dependant on Google for map data, so they > are going to try and commoditise map data to improve competition.

[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

I have updated the existing proposal Qanat: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat A qanat is a specialized kind of underground aqueduct which is the traditional way of supplying water in hot and arid climates within limited distance of a mountain range. It consists of an

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Yes, I do no trust FB declarations at all, it FB still refuses to attribute OSM properly and I hope that FB employees will not be elected into OSMF board. But in this case in FB self-interest is to keep this data available to OSM and I expect that they will continue this. Jun 19, 2020, 18:05

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

It's in Facebooks interest to have OSM be the best it possibly can. Facebook doesn't want to be dependant on Google for map data, so they are going to try and commoditise map data to improve competition. Google just released Google Maps SDK for Unity, an API for app developers to make Pokemon Go

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Dear Peter, Maybe I wasn't so clear, but I agree with you, if the train is bicycle=yes you can add it with "transfer" role in a bicycle route. Cheers Francesco Il giorno ven 19 giu 2020 alle ore 14:35 Peter Elderson ha scritto: > I think a bicycle route can not declare a rail route to be

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Let's hope the license will be permissive enough for other projects to take the data and continue their own way. They only said it will be free for commercial use, but it didn't say free as in beer or what. They said: > By continuing to make all images uploaded to Mapillary open, public, and >

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

This is the talk page section I wrote about a week ago, for future consideration. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:33 schreef Peter Elderson : > I think a bicycle route can not

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I think a bicycle route can not declare a rail route to be bicycle=yes. I think you should verify that the train is bicycle=yes before you call it a transfer. If it isn't, you can't declare it to be a part of your waymarked bicycle route, can you? Apart from that, if a router uses the bicycle

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Dear Volker and Peter, I agree with you both... The question was born for a bike+train (funicular actually), but it can be implemented in a generic way to fix similar cases. Insead of interrupting the relation on the railway, we can put the other public transport one as a member with a "transfer"

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

sent from a phone > On 19. Jun 2020, at 11:20, European Water Project > wrote: > For how long ? for as long as Facebook wants. There is also the practical aspect: even if the license is permissive, it doesn’t imply you can actually get the data for downloading. Facebook has changed

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

What leads you to believe that I am not calm ? Have a nice day. On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 11:40, Thibault Molleman wrote: > Calm down. > Normally if these images get their license upgraded to this newer license, > normally it shouldn't be able to be reverted. But we'll see once they > publish the

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Calm down. Normally if these images get their license upgraded to this newer license, normally it shouldn't be able to be reverted. But we'll see once they publish the license. (I don't really see a reason why Facebook would want to do that though tbh. Having Mapillary contain as much data as

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Hi Thibault, all the mapillary data is from now free to use, even for commercial use : "Moving forward, that will continue to be true, except that starting today, it will also be free to use for commercial users as well" For how long ? and free in exchange for what --- the ability to place

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

While I'm not a fan of Facebook either. If you play devils advocate. they have done some good stuff. and already notice some good changes to mapilary as well: - they have done some amazing work with 'map with AI' - all the mapillary data is from now free to use, even for commercial use : "Moving