"Phase 4: All man_made tags to be removed 2031-01-01 00:00 UTC+0"
I think that is as reasonable as it could be.
Yves
Le 21 octobre 2020 04:46:34 GMT+02:00, Robert Delmenico a
écrit :
>*Link to proposal page:*
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial
>*Definition*: A ta
Can you link actual scientific publication?
I am willing to change my mind but
I would need to check is it tested on
some sane sample of people, not
"Canadian males going to university with me"
(psychology scientific papers are
often only "scientific".
So I am not going
to treat seriously one t
'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo.
now reads:
"confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man',
people form mental pictures of males"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/l
(1) I never understood "man made" as
"made by males".
(2) One of primary meanings of "artificial"
for me is fake/pretending/misleading,
making this new proposed tags confusing,
maybe especially for non-native speakers
(3) see inherent problems with deprecating
highly used tags
(4) I would prefer
*Link to proposal page:*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial
*Definition*: A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures
added to the landscape.
Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal.
Kind Regards,
Robert Delmenico
rtbk
Nope, not trolling -
I have a genuine interest in what the OSM community thinks about the
proposal.
I for one though do think there is a bias - and I am entitled to hold that
view. There are others that support my view so therefore it exists.
A proposal will still be put forward as planned.
Kin
It appears so.
Pretending there is a bias, doesn't mean there is one.
DaveF
On 21/10/2020 02:34, Phake Nick wrote:
At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap
"Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting
Different Results"
On 20/10/2020 19:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://li
在 2020年10月21日週三 03:25，Justin Tracey 寫道：
> On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
> >> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
> >> English-speaking men)
> >
> > So, clearly, we need to change the langu
I agree these are very common arrangements.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my
> understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as
> covered by current state of tagging, no need for a p
I think that in this case full blown
proposal would be waste of time.
Whatever maxstay/time/whatever
keyword is used result should be fine.
We just need to document it
(add to examples list on
conditional restrictions page, maybe
also on fee page and parking page).
I would just wait for whatever
I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my
understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as
covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values
as a note, I believe we
Hi all,
There are lot of parking lots on amenities (shopping malls...), where parking
is free for customers, but only if you park for less than some specified time
amount (let's say 2-3h), imposed by that amenity. After that period, you have
to pay[1]. It is widespread where I live, but I would
On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
>> It's the same reason we want
>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
>> participating in OSM is *enjoya
Initial effect of separate highway=busway would be that all data consumers
that have not added support to this new tag would not display them.
Due to nature of busways in most cases it would not be deeply harmful effect
or very disruptive, but for some unknown time (possibly very long)
highway=bu
sent from a phone
> On 20. Oct 2020, at 13:20, Dave F via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the case.
> Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument.
but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own.
Cheers Martin
On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
It's the same reason we want
discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
joining in.
...and the i
I'm actually the author of the highway=busway proposal. I don't actually work
with the database, so I don't know how disruptive creating a new highway=* tag
would be. Having a separate highway=busway tag just seemed obvious to me. I
would not hierarchically place busways under highway=service du
On 19/10/2020 18.46, Robert Delmenico wrote:
'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
Because someone with a PC stick up their decided to declare
that "man made" meant "made by men" rather than "made by males"
No.
In the context of OSM, think of man_made=bridge akin to a noun. The
actual bridge object.
bridge=* is akin to an adjective/attribute of an object.
DaveF
On 20/10/2020 05:56, Robert Delmenico wrote:
Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
man_made=bridge is for areas
yes is for ways
On 19/10/2020 15:39, Robert Delmenico wrote:
Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
identify adult males.
That's your misinterpretation.
You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the
case. Every couple of years someone come along with the s
sent from a phone
> On 20. Oct 2020, at 09:02, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>
> But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and
> bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them.
no, bridge=yes areas could still be properties of polygon objects on bridges.
sent from a phone
> On 20. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>
> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
> man_made=bridge is for areas
> bridge=yes is for ways
>
> Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others meaning -
> I wouldn't think we would use n
But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and
bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them.
Rob
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:52 pm Andrew Harvey,
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico, wrote:
>
>> They mean the same thing, we tag diffe
24 matches
Mail list logo
