2020-12-15 23:38 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer:
Take a look back what I mentioned 3 days ago in my first answer: "...If we want to map all
those "meta areas" with names we would do well to think about additional ways of
delimiting space (i.e. different kind of geometry objects), e.g. a fuzzy
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 14:51, Andrew Harvey
wrote:
>
> Personally I'd usually try to add the operator and operator:wikidata tags
> in combination to give more context.
>
Thanks - I never think of wikidata tags as I don't usually use them.
Added
Graeme
Looks good to me.
Personally I'd usually try to add the operator and operator:wikidata tags
in combination to give more context.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 13:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>
>> Please visit
I've seen a few examples in both New York and California put in the tags of
on-ramps the destination:ref that has the direction in it, e.g.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5566969
However, after looking through the wiki, to my surprise, I cannot find this
practice mentioned anywhere. It
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
>
> Would this be satisfactory to the group in resolving the question of
> reservoir tagging?
>
Good idea to bring it up, but not sure it will resolve anything once & for
all?
Thanks
Graeme
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 23:55, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> 1) Holiday cottages are rarely building=cabin, they are mostly
> building=house.
>
May depend on where you are? I know of a number of places that advertise
cottages / cabins eg http://lyrebirdspringbrook.com/index.html
One around the corner
Thanks
Graeme
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue & have a
> look.
>
This proposal (which is partly linked to both the Rescue Services &
Military Bases proposals) is also close to moving to voting.
Precis:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations & have a
> look.
>
Reminder that voting is close to opening on this proposal.
*Precis:*
Amend the heading emergency=other_stations to emergency=rescue_stations /
To share a local varietal, we have "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park" and we
have "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall Creek Unit)," slightly
non-contiguous but managed together. In the real world (too) this sort of
"grouping between things that belong together or are part of a same thing"
sent from a phone
> On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:32, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
>
> I want to be clear that in such a proposal, any instances of disrespectful or
> insulting commentary directed towards any group or individual will not be
> tolerated and will be immediately brought to the
Thanks everyone for the discussion.
I believe there are two germane points being raised by Tomas that warrant
our consideration:
1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created
water=reservoir (and other values) as to whether the community intended to
deprecate landuse=reservoir or
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 10:42 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger :
> We should probably not have all these possible generalized areas in our
> db. Just as we probably shouldn't have a bedrock map in the db either, at
> least not until it can manage layers.
>
> But we could simply pick one criteria,
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 15:59 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> Re: “ a couple of islets with a collective name”
>
> We have a tag for that: place=archipelago for a group of islands.
>
> There isn’t a common tag for a group of lakes with one name, probably
> because
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 08:51 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger :
> The simple answer is that this naming concept is fundamentally broken, and
> that we need to have some other concept, such as fuzzy areas.
>
I agree that there isn't really a concept for naming larger (natural)
areas. In OSM you can
Re: the Great Lakes -
Very large archipelagos, like "Indonesia" or "The Phillipines" or "The
British Isles", shouldn't be mapped as multipolygons because they would be
ridiculously huge. Generally the tag place=archipelago is used for small to
mid-sized groups of islands. Now, it is possible to
That's a good question, Brian. On its face, it would be more consistent to
keep this in the place=* key. I like both of your choices, as the concept
doesn't really have a single word to describe "lakes" in the plural as distinct
from the singular (as archipelago does for island). The
Wouldn't it be more consistent to keep it in the same key, and call it
place=lake_group? Or even place=lakes?
Would this be used for something like the Great Lakes in USA/Canada or is
that too large of a feature?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 12:05 PM stevea wrote:
> +1. Joseph's suggestion is a
+1. Joseph's suggestion is a fine example of "OSM can and does coin new tags
on occasion." Adding a nice boost, there is a suggestion that "similar"
tagging be used as an example of how to define / use / document the new tag.
Great!
On Dec 15, 2020, at 6:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
That is stated even better than I meant to state. Yes, JOSM's relation editor
is "the best there is."
On Dec 15, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> stevea :
> (Personally, I find JOSM’s relation editor to be one of its most elegant
> features for a data structure as relatively
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:07, Jmapb wrote:
[On distributed motel cabins]
> No indeed it does not. I would be uncomfortable using the tourism=motel
> tag on any establishment with a minimum week stay, kitchens or no. Even a
> 2-night minimum at a motel would wrinkle my brow.
>
There might be
Re: “ a couple of islets with a collective name”
We have a tag for that: place=archipelago for a group of islands.
There isn’t a common tag for a group of lakes with one name, probably
because this is only common in some countries, especially near the Arctic
region. We’ve talked about this issue
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 08:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Dec 15, 2020, 03:33 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
> How about tagging the whole area as tourism=chalet + name=Foo Cottages +
> capacity=25
> then tagging each individual cottage / cabin as either
>
I'll make a small change to my naming strategy: use one multipolygon per
natural tag set, and thus minimize the number of same-named polygons.
Normally, when naming entities which has all the same natural tags but
separate areas, such as a couple of ponds or islets with a collective
name
How about "holiday park"? A google search for that brings up some caravan
parks but also some with chalets / "lodges".
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dec 15, 2020, 03:33 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020
When I started using JOSM, which is not so long ago, I hated it. If one
is used to graphic software from say Adobe etc, many things in the user
interface feel backwards. But now when I've got into it, one can really
work effectively. When I started I didn't really understand the
multipolygon
We should probably not have all these possible generalized areas in our
db. Just as we probably shouldn't have a bedrock map in the db either,
at least not until it can manage layers.
But we could simply pick one criteria, document the definition of the
"fuzzy area" and have that. Some
sent from a phone
> On 14. Dec 2020, at 23:11, François Lacombe wrote:
> Furthermore, :type suffixes make things complex and don't bring any
> additional information as anything is a type or category of something
yes, the keys should rather say which kind of type they are referring to. For
stevea :
> (Personally, I find JOSM’s relation editor to be one of its most elegant
> features for a data structure as relatively complex as a relation.
>
I am not qualified to judge elegance, but I find JOSM's relation editor the
best there is. I don't think relations are very complex data
+1, this kind of change is completely fine
Dec 15, 2020, 06:19 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
> Thanks Brian.
>
> As far as I am concerned, those changes are fine.
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 10:53, Brian M. Sperlongano <> zelonew...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I recently
Yes we actually have some of that up here too. I've chosen generally not
to map it though as one cannot really verify it on the satellite photos,
and here in the vast nature in north it's not really reasonable to visit
all these places on foot so one have to rely on satellite photos for
large
sent from a phone
> On 15. Dec 2020, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> If I look at a map eg
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#/media/File:Relief_Map_of_Germany,_Black_Forest.png,
> it tells me that the Balck Forest is a more or less oval-shaped area in
> Southern Germany.
Dec 15, 2020, 03:33 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:28, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>> I can't think of an English term, other than "holiday cottages." These
>> places
>> generally call themselves "Foo Holiday Cottages" or "Foo Holidays" or
>> "Foo
A little less “my way is the right way” (complaining, plain and simple) and a
little more “ah, OSM does what OSM does, I understand how I can both contribute
AND make use of it,” please. Lots of us do this (both) and actually improve
the map while we’re at it! (Map data, map documentation via
> 15 dec. 2020 kl. 08:26 skrev Anders Torger :
>
> And about wetlands, couldn't those be just rendered on top of forests so we
> didn't have to make these complex multipolygons?
It does make sense to have overlapping wetland and forest, though. To take a
swedish example: down here in 08-land
> 15 dec. 2020 kl. 08:26 skrev Anders Torger :
>
> And about wasting mapper's time. What about that we have to punch holes and
> make river areas for rivers nowadays? Punch holes for waters in forest areas?
Anecdote: When I first started toying with rendering about ten years ago, I had
35 matches
Mail list logo
