2010/7/17 Paul Johnson :
> Motorway doesn't (or shouldn't) imply any access restrictions, just that
> it doesn't have at-grade intersections (save for emergency vehicle, or
> rarely, extremely rural range access).
IMHO motorways should indeed imply access restrictions for non- and
light-motorized
2010/7/20 Richard Mann :
> So something like this:
>
> http://www.classiccarports.com/images/galleries/walkways/covered-walkway-2.jpg
>
> should be rendered the same way as a tunnel?
yes. You would map the roof (building=roof) and the way itself will be
rendered above (as tunnel)
cheers,
Martin
2010/7/20 John Smith :
> On 20 July 2010 19:11, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> exactly, there is a lot of application cases and I don't see why our
>> definition should be so arbitrarily restrictive.
>
> It's probably only limited because people didn't think
2010/7/20 Richard Mann :
> How would you like it rendered? Covered-as-in-a-shopping-mall is quite
> different to covered-as-in-protected-from-the-rain. The real problem
> is that it's scope is too broad.
The scope is not the problem. If a way is covered I'd expect it to be
rendered dashed, regard
2010/7/20 Richard Mann :
> Layers don't work when there are area/way conflicts, because the norm
> for rendering is to draw areas first then ways on top. So you have to
> have a flag that says "this way isn't really on top". We have a
> perfectly adequate flag for this function (tunnel=yes), but pe
the covered page lists these use-cases:
A. denote that a highway, railway, pedestrian way or waterway passes
under a building or other structure, where it is inappropriate to use
layering as the differentiator between covered and uncovered. or where
"covered" will more clearly define the condition.
2010/7/19 John Smith :
> On 19 July 2010 23:47, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> No, I didn't miss that. I was replying to Pieren in the cited message.
>> You're right, it is not impossible, still it requires a bit of effort
>> due to the number of surface values.
>
2010/7/19 John Smith :
> On 19 July 2010 23:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> the difference is that surface=paved is preliminary and paved=yes is
>> definite.
>> What's the difference between surface=paved and surface=cobblestone
>> and surface=asphalt? That
2010/7/19 Pieren :
> I think that's really stupid. Again, just to make 0.5% contributors happy,
> we create a dupplicated tag ... Then wait 2 months and a newcomer will ask
> "what's the difference between 'surface=paved' and 'paved=yes' ?".
the difference is that surface=paved is preliminary and
2010/7/16 Richard Welty :
> On 7/15/10 5:45 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 16 July 2010 07:42, Richard Mann
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Can't find it on the wiki - do you have a ref?
>>>
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:paved
I did that, because of 2 reasons:
1) there is a number of users
2010/7/14 Steve Bennett :
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Perhaps landuse=highway covering the entire highway right-of-way
>> (including sidewalks), and then surface=grass for the green areas?
landuse=highway should (other discussions here in the past) comprise
the
2010/7/7 Vincent Pottier :
> On the community building I put the tags
> religion=christian
> denomination=catholic
> community=NNN using the abreviation :
I used operator, as I thought that it was an already established tag
that would describe this as well.
cheers,
Martin
_
2010/7/8 Richard Welty :
> that's fine for the part that is a cathedral. a monastery will usually
> contain
> living and working areas, gardens, etc.
>
> perhaps an area with
>
> landuse=monastery
I'd prefer something more generic like landuse=religious
For the site relation I used site=monaster
Recently I found that we have no documented tags for abbeys,
monasteries, shrines. Do you think it would be better to put them into
amenity as subtags of place of worship or would it be better to have
own tags? If we go for subtags we probably will have to add also one
for churches, cathedrals, etc
2010/7/7 Colin Smale :
> So
> IMHO all ways should have their maxspeed indicated individually in the
> traditional way
+1
, and if someone wants to draw a polygon to indicate the
> limits of the zone, well, OSM won't stop them.
IMHO a polygon is not right, as the zone applies only to roads, no
2010/7/6 Richard Mann :
> maxspeed=20 mph+maxspeed:note=Oxford 20 mph zone
I'd suggest to use source:maxspeed instead of note, as I think it is
already widely used and documented in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:maxspeed
You could adopt the scheme and add your definiti
2010/7/6 Sebastian Klein :
> -- ---
> 944 zone:maxspeed=DE:30
> 631 zone:traffic=DE:30
> 516 source:maxspeed=traffic_zone
> 433 source:maxspeed=DE:zone30
> 152 zone:speed=30
> 140 maxspeed:zone=yes
> 40 source:maxspeed=zone30
>
> So which one to choose? Certainly there is
2010/7/5 John Smith :
> How many uses should we tag, what if it's mostly used for basketball 5
> days of the week? What about school dances? Parent/Teacher meetings?
> Scouts?
We should map all of them. Please invent a scheme that allows for this ;-)
cheers,
Martin
2010/7/4 Alan Millar :
> How are people using the "lanes" tag on motorways? Do you count the on/off
> ramps that come and go?
> On a lot of the freeways near me, they have two main driving lanes on each
> direction, so I set it up as a dual carriage way with one-way on each side,
> and mark each s
2010/7/4 y...@o2.pl :
> 2010/7/3 Tobias Knerr :
>> The information key is currently only defined as a subkey for
>> tourism=information, so I'd rather not use it. Amenities tend to be
>> something you might actively look for. How about using man_made instead?
>
> Sounds good.
>
>> Isn't that simply
2010/7/1 Anthony :
> The benefit is precisely the removal of the thing you find cool. People
> won't think they understand a key/value simply because they see the name of
> the tag.
I see your point and it is valid sometimes, but often it is not. E.g.
amenity=post_box or oneway=yes. Or landuse
2010/7/1 John Smith :
>> we already do this with presets, and I don't like the concept either
>> ;-), I'm using the english JOSM version because of this. Part of the
>> "problem" in this thread derives exactly from this (soccer vs
>> football).
>
> You disagree with the translation someone else mad
2010/7/1 John Smith :
> Not that I'm advocating this at all, and not that english names can't
> be used in the same manner for the purposes of translations, but there
> is several ways you could do this and have numbers that didn't
> conflict, for example you could use UUIDs, you could do a hierarc
2010/6/30 Zeke Farwell :
> Wow…. after following the back and forth on this thread I'm really starting
> to understand the argument for numeric tagging schemes
> sport=305 (american football)
> sport=246 (association football, football, soccer, calcio, etc…)
> sport=220 (rugby)
> Is anyone going t
2010/6/30 John Smith :
> Not really, or at least not most area shapes I've seen as people tag
> stadiums or several fields in the same area, or just do a node.
personally I tag them sport=soccer, leisure=pitch for the single field.
cheers,
Martin
___
2010/6/29 Richard Welty :
> as a practical matter (mapping football fields), there are only two relevant
> ones
> in the North America: outdoor fields of 100 yards in length (US college &
> pro
> games, outdoors), and outdoor fields of 110 yards in length (Canadian). and
> i see no compelling reaso
2010/6/28 Vincent Pottier :
> The discussion is finaly : what to put in the JOSM preset.
>
> I just drew a square. I have selected "Pré-réglages > Sports > Sports de
> balle > football" and the tag I hhave got is "sport=soccer"
>
> I have drawn an other square. I have selected "Pré-réglages > Sport
2010/6/28 Peteris Krisjanis :
> Martin, I see alias tags as way to phase out old tag and replace it
> with new one.
I'd love this to work out but unfortunately in the past this never
worked and resulted always in more confusion than before because new
tags never managed to completely replace old
2010/6/28 John Smith :
> On 28 June 2010 20:20, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> or maybe all three versions and some other versions as well that
>> weren't thought of right now. Why should using our data be easy?
>
> highway=path already gave alias tagging a precedent, s
2010/6/28 Peteris Krisjanis :
> Or there could be third way - just propose sport=association_football
> as alias of sport=soccer and use it from now on. I think this would be
> best way to deal with it.
or maybe all three versions and some other versions as well that
weren't thought of right now.
2010/6/28 Pieren :
> Just note that 'soccer' and 'football' seem to be both present in JOSM
> presets...
+1, and please note that the icon for "football" shows a handegg.
> Anyway, I will not fight for such tags but it seems that in this list, some
> people are always agains changes "because it
2010/6/28 John Smith :
> emergency=siren ?
>
> I'm sure this sort of thing deserves it's own category.
+1, and some subtag if the reason/function is specific (siren=tsunami
or siren=storm_warning or something similar and more English).
cheers,
Martin
2010/6/28 Jason Cunningham :
> Yes, the wiki needs to be changed to tell people not to use the insulting
> word 'soccer', especially as we try to use British English to stop tags
> getting confusing.
-1, no the wiki is documenting the actual usage of tags, it is not an
authority to change the com
2010/6/28 pavithran :
> On 27 June 2010 17:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> -1, AFAIK we use soccer in Germany, Italy and probably elsewhere,
>> while football refers to american football (looking at the icons,
>> preset icons, etc.).
>
> http://de.wikipe
2010/6/27 Andre Engels :
> In my opinion, football being multi-interpretable, the name should not
> be used for either. sport=soccer is 100% clear,
> sport=american_football also is. sport=football can be different
> things, and therefore is to be avoided except if for whatever reason
> you know so
2010/6/27 Richard Mann :
> In Europe soccer is winning by a factor of about 12:1, but the 2700
> "football"s had probably better be interpreted as soccer in the
> absence of other evidence.
-1, you can interpret what you like, but please don't change the tags
if you don't know the place. There is
2010/6/27 Pieren :
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM, pavithran wrote:
>>
>> As a worldwide project which name should we prefer ?
>>
>
> "soccer" in US and Canada and "football" everywhere else.
-1, AFAIK we use soccer in Germany, Italy and probably elsewhere,
while football refers to american f
2010/6/25 Cartinus :
> I'm afraid most people don't think "It looks better." is a compelling reason.
actually I do think that "looks better" is a good reason. It follows
some logics that makes mapping easier for everybody.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging m
2010/6/25 Craig Wallace :
>> int_name -> name:international
>> nat_name -> name:national
>> reg_name -> name:regional
>> loc_name -> name:local
>> old_name -> name:old
>> alt_name -> name:alt or name:alternative
>> official_name -> name:official
>>
>> But then we can have structures like th
2010/6/24 Cartinus :
> Yes, it does make sense: I told you you had to make a choice between a simple
> model or a complex one. Obviously you don't like the simple one. So now you
> have to design a complex one for the multi-lane road and convince other
> people to map in the same way. Good luck.
2010/6/24 Nathan Edgars II :
>> I would use:
>> railway=*
>> tracks=2
>
> Except that then you don't have the individual positions of the tracks.
+1, but until you map single lanes you won't have more than one way.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing l
2010/6/18 Richard Mann :
> The first one is motorway_link, the second primary (because it's
> two-way), the third primary_link, the fourth could be just about
> anything from trunk to service. Mapnik makes a mess if a link
> intersects a service, but that's cos Mapnik renders a trunk_link under
> a
2010/6/17 Alex Wardle :
> Could people please look and vote on this proposal.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Advanced_stop_line
IMHO before voting you should make the actual tags to describe the
situation more visible on the proposal page. There were also comments
that "as
2010/6/17 :
> "The highway tag is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the
> only tag. It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the
> importance of the highway for the road grid. "
>
> The term "importance" isn't defined
Why shouldn't importance not be defined? It is po
2010/6/17 Zeke Farwell :
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:21 AM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> Everything you talked about above is specifically about rendering, not
>> about mapping, in terms of mapping airports you really need to base
>> things on a 1:1 basis
> If you are making
> an aviation specific m
2010/6/16 Zeke Farwell :
> Those who think a general importance tag with numeric values would be best
...> I think a general importance=1,2,3,4... tag to serve as a renderer hint has
> merit as well. This could be used by many features in OSM. ...
FYI, there is already a draft for this in the wi
2010/6/16 John Smith :
> The problem with using subjective tagging is you can't easily quantify
> it, where as things like air traffic is objective.
But what you can do is compare it to the surrounding / context /
nationwide / worldwide. It's like the highway key for tertiary,
secondary, primary.
2010/6/15 Steve Bennett :
> http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-37.790341,145.039779&z=19&t=k&nmd=20100416
>
> You tell me which of those is a highway=motorway and which is a highway=trunk.
actually there seems quite some traffic, that's why I would consider
it extremely dangerous to use the shoulder by
2010/6/15 Steve Bennett :
> And since
> there isn't much difference between a shoulder and a bike lane
there is a huge difference IMO. The presence of a bike lane suggests
that the road was thought (or later adapted) also for bicycle use, it
will usually be convenient to enter and leave the bike
2010/6/15 Zeke Farwell :
> Well aeroway=helipad is documented on the wiki. Doesn't render currently
> though.
It does render in t...@h, mapnik doesn't show it.
What about creating a site-relation for airports, where the runways
are entered and the application can then decide how important and
2010/6/12 Nathan Edgars II :
> class than the segments that prohibit bikes. They should be tagged
> highway=motorway bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated.
+1, that's the point: tag the exception, and not bicycle=no on every
other piece of motorway. At least for motorways this should be
easiely poss
2010/6/12 Roy Wallace :
>>
>> why not just service=motorway?
>
> To me, service=motorway implies that the feature "is a motorway". How
> would you describe the feature? - use that as the value.
+1, that's why it is considered appropriate: the service area is
indeed part of the motorway zone (e.g.
2010/6/10 Elena of Valhalla :
> On 6/10/10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_334.svg&filetimestamp=20060506221325
>>
>> everything in between is a motorway.
>
> In Italy e.g. the end of motorway sign (like the on
2010/6/10 Pieren :
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:41 PM, fly wrote:
>>
>> yes, in Germany. If the Road is in/under cronstuction and also some ends
>> of
>> motorways. They are sign as motorways but the only have one lane and some
>> have
>> no physical barrier in between.
>>
>> This situation can som
2010/6/10 Elena of Valhalla :
> On 6/10/10, fly wrote:
>> Am 10.06.2010 15:23, schrieb Pieren:
>>> 1. I know some motorways which are not oneway.
>>> not in Europe
>> yes, in Germany. If the Road is in/under cronstuction and also some ends of
>> motorways.
>
> End of motorways that aren't onew
2010/6/10 fly :
> and what happens with the rest of the steps on the right-hand-side
>
> You can not see it but the top 2 steps go off shape on the right side. - leads
> to one more relation.
OK, if outside the foto there is something happening like this, you
will need another relation for this.
2010/6/10 fly :
> If access=no is implied, you need motorcycle=yes, cause right no only
> motorcar=yes is implied. Better would be to imply motor_vehicle=yes
where do you get this from? IMHO access=no is not implied.
> from your suggestion lanes=2 should be implied aswell.
I'm against implying
2010/6/10 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2010/6/10 fly :
>> Have a look:
>> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/17927910
>>
>> I said it is even more complicated and even on this picture you do not see
>> all
>> steps !
>
>
> OK, but the steps o
2010/6/10 fly :
> Have a look:
> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/17927910
>
> I said it is even more complicated and even on this picture you do not see all
> steps !
OK, but the steps on the picture are not that complicated. You need
only 2 relations: one with 11 steps (or 12 if the lo
2010/6/10 fly :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/957489
> I still do not know where to put the information that you have to drop steps
> from the bottom and not from the top.
if you have different amount of steps inside the area, you will
currently have to model more than one relati
2010/6/10 fly :
> validator gives warnings about the lower/upper way because these ways do not
> have any tag.
> Do we need a tag for these ways ?
IMHO it shouldn't as the way is part of a relation. It doesn't for
mp-relations for instance.
cheers,
Martin
___
2010/6/9 Steve Bennett :
> Yes, but this scheme will never work because it's totally at odds with
> English. When English is your second language, all tags seem equally
> arbitrary, but English speakers will expect power=station to be a
> power station, and power=sub_station to be a substation. And
2010/6/9 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 0 for the lowest way
> 1 is at higher elevation than 0
> 2
> 3
sorry, forget about this, it makes things too complicated.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.opens
2010/6/9 Roy Wallace :
> So just to summarise, you would have a relation:
> type=area
> highway=steps
> step_count=15 (already documented on the wiki)
>
> with way members:
> role=lower,
> role=upper, and two
> role=lateral (I don't think these values need to be prefixed with steps:)
that's fine,
2010/6/8 fly :
> Interesting relation.
thanks, it is capable to model a lot more (lanes, road surface without
explicit "inner" borders, detailed barriers with less effort, ...),
but unfortunately I'm not a programmer to prove it could work.
> We need some examples as data to have a look at. May
2010/6/7 Roy Wallace :
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> Martin, I don't really know what you mean. Perhaps I don't understand
> the type=area proposal properly. Can you give us a full example (i.e.
> the tags) of how you would map those
2010/6/8 John Smith :
> power=sub_station
> voltage:from=330kV
> voltage:to=100kV
following recent discussions on Talk-DE, this would be power=station,
while the power station (generating station) itself is called
power=generator. At least that's what they wrote.
> or in this case
>
> voltage:to
2010/6/7 y...@o2.pl :
> I was also thinking about marketplace=street_market rather than
> bazaar. But maybe there is a place for both tags, e.g. bazaar IMO
> looks like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kapali_Carsi-Grand_Bazar-Istanbul-Sep08.jpg,
this looks like highway=pedestrian to me (whic
2010/6/7 y...@o2.pl :
> Hi, I'm searching for tag for a slag heap (strictly, something that
> Germans call Halde):
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salzberg_kaliwerk_wintershall_heringen.jpg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terril_Loos-en-Gohelle_2006-01-14.jpg
> http://commons.wi
2010/6/3 Liz :
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> if you see it in its historical context, it does look much more like a
>> tower though:
>> http://www.checkpoint-bravo.de/grafik/ausstellung.jpg
>
>
> It isn't a tower, but it functioned as a
2010/6/3 John Smith :
> This thread has gone from communication towers to other towers, in any
> case for #1 I'd be hard press to call this a tower, even if it had
> elevation due to geographical features, I'd go for command centre or
> something similar before I'd ever consider it a tower because
2010/6/3 John Smith :
> #2 is a tower for historical reasons only imho,
yes, it might have been higher in the past presuming that the ground
level now is higher, and the same as for #1 applies;
#1 is just some
> shed/building, I wouldn't consider it a tower it isn't substantially
> higher than
2010/6/3 John Smith :
> I've penned some initial thoughts on what to do about Object ID Permanence
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/UUID
in tagging you give this example:
* building=warehouse
* name=The Texas School Book Depository
* uuid:building=21d906f1-7a93
2010/6/3 John Smith :
> On 3 June 2010 22:59, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> probably I wouldn't tag it as landuse=reservoir. Tag the tanks just as
>> sedimentation_tank but use the landuse for the whole area (maybe
>> industrial or something more specific for the whol
2010/6/3 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2010/6/2 y...@o2.pl :
>> Hi,
>> I'm wondering how to tag sedimentation tank at a sewage treatment. I'm
>> thinking about 'landuse=reservoir' + 'man_made=sedimentation_tank'.
>
>
> +1, good suggestion
>
2010/6/2 y...@o2.pl :
> Hi,
> I'm wondering how to tag sedimentation tank at a sewage treatment. I'm
> thinking about 'landuse=reservoir' + 'man_made=sedimentation_tank'.
+1, good suggestion
I don't think it is useful (like suggested from other posters) to tag
sedimentation tanks as water storag
2010/6/2 John Smith :
> On 2 June 2010 19:58, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I don't mind how we differentiate them (1st level or subtags), but
>
> Sure, there is currently a lack of sub-tags for towers,
+1, I will make a proposal for this as soon as there is some time.
&g
2010/6/2 John Smith :
> On 2 June 2010 19:26, Liz wrote:
>> "John's set" are usually towers - I've seen a fair number of them in my
>> travels.
>
> I'd still consider the mobile phone masts that are about the place are towers.
I don't mind how we differentiate them (1st level or subtags), but
th
2010/6/2 Martin Simon :
> For example, I've been in a Croatian Island for mapping, er, vacation
> last year. The "capital" of this island has half the population of the
> village in Germany where I lived in my childhood, but it's a real
> town,
so simply tag it as place=town, what's the problem?
2010/6/2 Roy Wallace :
> I'm not sure if I should start a new thread for this, but John:
> shouldn't the node's role be "tower", not "transponder"?
> i.e. the *relation* represents the transponder (hence
> type=transponder), but the *node* represents the *tower*, so should
> have role=tower.
most
2010/6/2 John Smith :
> On 2 June 2010 17:50, Pieren wrote:
>> It is a french word meaning ... 'shop'.
>> So, what is suggested is "shop=shop" as a french reader could interpret it.
>
> Ain't english grand?
>
> From wikipedia: "A boutique, from the French word for "shop," is a
> small shopping out
2010/6/1 Liz :
> A large factory may consist of a number of smaller parts, some of which are
> workshops. Other areas may be assembly lines / bottling plants / first aid
> posts.
of course, it might also have its own fire department, police, shops,
restaurants, traffic enforcement, railway statio
2010/6/1 Martin Simon :
> 2010/6/1 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> If you can read German I also suggest this one, which is not
>> comparable to the English version:
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadt
>
> How about this approach?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent
2010/5/28 sly (sylvain letuffe) :
> First, I'm aware that full classification of every populated places is not
> possible world wide with one tag only, ...The problem I see with actual place
> usage is that it is not
> standardazided world wide ...
IMHO place is a rough estimate where in the loc
2010/5/31 Pieren :
> ...but it's not a reason to accept everything, especially data
> changing daily.
yes, I totally agree that highly dynamic data like actual traffic jams
are not to be put into OSM database, but here the suggestion was to
put information about typical locations with frequent tr
2010/5/31 John Smith :
> together under a single banner. Buildings/temples and other places of
> worship still exist from these religions, like ancient Greek and Roman
> temples, pyramids in Egypt and south America, Stone Henge in the UK
> and native scared sites in various countries from various p
2010/5/31 Steve Bennett :
> By "permanent" you presumably mean "stable". Nodes and ways have IDs,
> so it doesn't seem like a difficult problem to me.
if you're talking about static (OSM-)data this is indeed simple,
otherwise it requires quite some effort: nodes are deleted, moved,
etc., and this
2010/5/31 John Smith :
> leisure=track is for racing animals like greyhounds/horses, although
> the map features page also suggests cycling.
Besides cyclists and animals, isn't leisure=track used for tracks for
running humans as well (like you can find in a stadium)?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/w
2010/5/31 Steve Bennett :
> IMHO, if there is not signage or some sort of official designation to
> back it up, this kind of subjective, user-supplied information belongs
> somewhere other than the OSM database.
> It's certainly valuable,
if it is, I believe we should also put it into our data.
2010/5/30 Liz :
> If Neopaganism is what is meant, then why wasn't it used?
+1
I also think that neopagan is closer to what is probably meant and
avoid confusion with the christian point of view of seeing all
non-christians as pagans.
cheers,
Martin
2010/5/28 sylvain letuffe :
>> showed the labels, but we created a list of cities because *those*
>> *are* the cities in Italy.
>
> So every "città" in Italy is tagged place=city ? So you can have a 1 to 1
> città<>city ?
>
> So all this are tagged place=city :
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citt%C
2010/5/29 Roy Wallace :
> Please compare this situation to what happened recently with the
> meaning of highway=*. Do you think highway=* tags are used to "tag for
> the renderer"? In some ways, yes, they are. But more specifically,
> highway=* tags are "a very general and sometimes vague descripti
2010/5/28 Liz :
> would a relation make more sense
> to group parking+toilets+bin+fuel+food
> in whatever combination was available?
site-relation
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf
2010/5/28 John Smith :
> On 28 May 2010 11:57, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> My point is not that we should necessarily even use population=*. My
>> point is that this proposal is redundant. There is no reason to use
>> place=* to indicate the population. IF you want to indicate the
>> population, use pop
2010/5/28 Steve Bennett :
> When tagging an area leisure=marina, do you include:
> - just the area on water
> - the water and the immediate area around it (ie, slipways, mooring points
> etc)
> - facilities like boat storage
I would include all of these. Probably this is a use case for the site
2010/5/23 John Smith :
> On 23 May 2010 08:24, Liz wrote:
>> If so, then a relation would be a sensible suggestion
>> I think we have used relation for "Tourist Route" in Australia.
>
> Tourist routes aren't only used for winery tours, maybe there needs to
> be a note or some other tag to indicate
2010/5/19 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
> I see your point... I think the wiki definition of
> landuse=recreation_ground is a bit in conflict with common sense (like
> the leisure=garden was) and it should be changed.
I don't think so. Recreation ground is a term that is refering to
sports, even th
2010/5/19 John Smith :
>> yes, I guess it helps more to speak German ;-). In German highway=ford
>> translates to "Furt" and this is the definition in OSM. Mostly you can
>> guess the meaning of tags by typing them into an
>> English-German-dictionary and look up the various meanings in German.
>
>
2010/5/20 Tyler Gunn :
> Lol, now just think if we micro-mapped each tree in the parking lot you
> could get your GPS to determine the spot that is likely to be in shade for
> a large part of the day, keeping your car nice and cool! :) Ok, too far
> perhaps.
height and diameter are still missing
2010/5/19 Anthony :
> One problem I have with the concept of "access=destination", even beyond the
> fact that it says "right of access", is that parking lots quite often aren't
> connected to the places they serve. Something like access=customer is
> therefore *more general*. The parking lot mig
801 - 900 of 969 matches
Mail list logo
