On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:04:38PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 22.01.2014 21:52, yvecai wrote:
97 sport=ski_jump_take_off, given the number off such facilities in the
world can be considered as a massive use of the tag. Should we really
change the key even if leisure, man_made or
Hi,
considering a fairly short way that is partially covered in several
places by one or more buidlings:
(1) should the way be split in sections and covered applied striclty only
to the covered sections
(2) or is it good enough to mark a larger section with covered and interpret
it to
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:31:51PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote:
We should try to unify tagging of various sport objects as much as
possible. Golf courses are tagged like this:
leisure=ski_jumping_hill (over the whole area)
ski_jump=take_off (or maybe better, ski_jump=in-run)
ski_jump=landing
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:39:12PM +0100, Johan C wrote:
It was a bit confusing to me, but tunnel=building_passage seems to be a
better one than covered=yes for the situations when a highway is under a
building. I think ideally such a building should be split giving the
building a different
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:25:48AM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Keepright has a new maintainer, and will be revived on a new server soon.
is there an issue tracker or other possibility to report bugs and
issues for keepright?
Richard
___
Tagging
Hi,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dam says:
* Smaller dams can be drawn as a way Way and tagged with waterway=dam. They
will be rendered with a black line.
* Bigger dams can be drawn as an area Area and tagged with waterway=dam. They
will be rendered with a gray hatching.
I think it
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:13:23PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote:
2014-02-03 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
A user has recently amended them all to natural=water water=canal. Is
there a specific reason for this? Does it correct any problems or give any
advantages for rendering etc?
Hi,
I have significantly changed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring
with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and
enhancments.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:28:28PM +0100, Richard Z. wrote:
Hi,
I have significantly changed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring
with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and
enhancments.
just to clarify, among other changes I
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:29:06PM +, Dan S wrote:
2014-03-03 12:53 GMT+00:00 nounours77 kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com:
I have significantly changed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring
with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:14:42PM +0100, fly wrote:
Well, think it might get tricky. I know places where you will find
several springs right next to each other. Some are hot, some are warm
and some are cold. All have different contents not depending on the
temperature.
that is fine. The
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:53:48PM +0100, nounours77 wrote:
I have significantly changed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring
with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and
enhancments.
Dear Richard,
thanks for your
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:35:02AM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Speaking as a chemist, the term sulfuric would imply strong acidity as in
sulfuric acid. What you're looking for I believe is a term to indicate if
the water smells bad or not. Many hot springs have a rotten egg smell lent
to the
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:50:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
Hi,
+1 to Tobias.
I feel it needs clarification for this tag scope.
I think it was leisure=hot_spring once,
and switched to natural=hot_spring.
exactly.
So the main purpose of this scheme is now natural.
Like to
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:06:45AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
So the idea is to have
natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out
I see :)
So I prefer to switch the icon from Onsen icon ♨ to another ones.
it ♨ maybe to use for leisure/amenity scheme.
another
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:01:50AM +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Aren't volcanos exactly what geothermal refers to, only near or at the
surface instead of deep down in the earth?
apparently not, I can only direct you to the wikipedia article:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:24:24AM -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote:
In what sense is volcanic heat not geothermal?
In some sense you could argue that volcanos are also heated by geothermal
heat but the details are very different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_(geology)#Heat_sources
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:56:57AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
* Onsen without lodging
amenity=public_bath
leisure=onsen
so in this combination which object would you tag with leisure=onsen,
the water pool? The same object which is also tagged with public_bath?
Looking at
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:58:51PM -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I don't see anything in that definition that says the heat from within the
earth has to be a minimum distance below the surface in order to be classed
as geothermal. Volcanism is a subset of geothermal, where the hot material
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:15:13AM +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Hi Richard,
Am 05.03.2014 21:50, schrieb Richard Z.:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:58:51PM -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I don't see anything in that definition that says the heat from within the
earth has to be a minimum
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:45:51PM +0900, johnw wrote:
On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
I know of a number of each type of facility that I won't be adding to
the map
This is for an amenity for a building - like Sauna. not a natural=hot_spring
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 12:38:14AM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Just saying:
Tradition among both cavers and hot springs bathing enthusiasts is to
keep quiet about locations,
passing the word though caving societies and word of mouth. Why?
Because caves and hot springs
that become well
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:44:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
John
some onsen are not associated with hot springs, but have hot sand instead.
Yes, but they are rare case.
Most of onsen are hot water bath.
So might be represented by adding following sub_tags.
bath:sand_bath=[yes|no] ; if
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:51:47AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my
understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to
specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong
to tag a
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
That's clearly a bug.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
in theory yes. However nearby is a problem as rivers can be very long.
Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about
the fact
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
That's clearly a bug.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
for that.
validators can check for many errors but if you want to change
anything you
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:24:07AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer
warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on correcting them).
even worse, people just apply layer=-1
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:25:16PM +0100, André Pirard wrote:
Hi,
I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads.
do not like that too much either.
In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1
under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0.
but
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give
you no clue how to fix them correctly
I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator
should be enough to bring a new user to an
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:19:36PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you
tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering
order of highways, leading to this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009
what
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 09:36:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 16/mar/2014 um 01:42 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
Also building=bridge is the wrong tag for this bridge
why? Let's be cautious with judgements like wrong tag and even more in
situations where
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:40:15PM +1100, David Bannon wrote:
A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of
the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland. No part of it even
approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other
roads, world wide, often quite
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote:
This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my
understanding, the layer tag has no specific
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:38:08PM +0100, fly wrote:
On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
As it might be even hard to define the ground level (we
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 03:44:17PM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
Hello,
i put up a proposal for specifying somewhat tighter limits on where to
place the transit between the coastline and the riverbank polygon at
the mouth of a river:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Clay Smalley wrote:
Sounds about right, but add layer=* tags where appropriate. Clouds go above
the land, so we have to make sure they render above everything (except
certain bridges and buildings). Might as well add layer=5 to all of them
for good
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:15:39AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote:
I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my
local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong,
It's not wrong. It's just another way to
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:53:25PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote:
C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do
things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What
other possible justification is
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:21:51PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
April 1st aside: the number of important implicit assumptions is relatively
small. Rivers under, power lines over, closed ways under except if they're
tagged building, etc. Currently this type of layering is implicit in
various
Hi,
I have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
a highway is going over a waterway:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway
We have been thinking about it for a while and it seems there is
some demand which
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where
a highway is going over a waterway:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:18:12PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Problem is that while wanting things to show on the map is a strong
motivator for people, it doesn't scale - we are not far from the point
where for every feature we add to our main map we have to remove another
feature from this
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert
are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think
of a track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
Also -1 for the proposal.
Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have
2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is
easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:44:40PM +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 02.04.2014 18:14, Richard Z. wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to
connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:52:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:43 schrieb Richard Z ricoz@gmail.com:
so again: *** a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains ***
Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!!
you don't need imagery, you
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:53:44AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given
by Martin and Janko.
What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I have an
idea from reading the thread but I wonder how many
Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:07:42PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
2014-04-03 11:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
FWIW, it is not true, we would save 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes
would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get
an
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
That is my main objection as well. This proposal is to deliberately reduce
the accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.
nonsense. This proposal is here to improve the accuracy. You do not have
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:
A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used
somewhere to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separated
crossing is better
described
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote:
Hi,
Regarding normalized layers.
If I can believe my eyes, bridges/culverts are under (uninterrupted
foil) roads
http://www.hdtimelapse.net/content/HDtimelapse.net_City/HDtimelapse.net_City_3290_hirez.jpg:
bridge=road-1.
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 11:04:13PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote:
In addition, key:layer *is not* rendering layer/order.
One example, a road is going through a forest, both should have
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 10:14:05PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 05.04.2014 21:17, Richard Z. wrote:
If the road (for whichever reason, valid or not) has layer=-1 and the
forest
just the implicit layer==0, the road should still be drawn above the forest.
I don't think
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 03:52:42PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
You are being asked, is the word brunnel one you coined, or is it in use
already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to
the question.
I have used a word I found in the wiki. I did not investigate
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:43:58PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote:
2014-04-12 20:39 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com:
I have never used this key before because of the drawback you mentioned:
There is no editor supporting this tag when reverting a way direction,
Does anyone else
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:42:34AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am using OSMAND for navigation, so it's important to have clear maps. Now
that I have downloaded the latest data for this area (which includes my
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:06:16PM +0900, Andrew Errington wrote:
Should I add layer=-1 to all the rivers and streams again?
no, see other email.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Chris Hill wrote:
On 21/04/14 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com
mailto:ricoz@gmail.com:
Without any additional tags like tunnel=* or covered=*, a
layer=-1 river shouldn't
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58:35AM +0200, André Pirard wrote:
On 2014-04-21 22:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com
mailto:ricoz@gmail.com:
Without any additional tags like tunnel=* or covered=*, a
layer=-1 river
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:54:37PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
Layer tag is a *hint* to the renderer, nothing more.
the wiki page says
The layer=* tag is one of several methods used to describe vertical
relationships between crossing
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:03:50PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
How best should I tag informal swimming areas? These typically have no
lifeguard or facilities. An example deep-content site for these types of
holes is:
http://www.iforgotthename.com/
In OSM is it best to create an area and
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 23:03 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
How best should I tag informal swimming areas? These typically have
no lifeguard or facilities. An example deep-content site for these
types of holes is:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Good old Wiipedia helps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_bridge
wikipedia is clear on that but if you look at swing bridge
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:10:26PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
Volker,
There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional
bridge:... keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page
somewhat to make
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:21:46AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
thanks, that looks much better now.
Would it be fine to add the simple_suspension type
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge
Hi,
lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing
in the English wiki, how to add it?
Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge
values?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
/covered, from examples
section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG
2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
Hi,
lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing
in the English wiki, how to add it?
Also, should
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is
it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the
opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is
clearly a different
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote:
I.e they define this tag as subtype of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real
application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply
covered=yes by
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk
ha scritto:
I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to
routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi,
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg
looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single
lane bridge. The speed limiting factor on this particular bridge might
be that you don't see
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
Hi,
As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out
the critique a bit so I can try to improve things.
my criticism was
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
Maintaining both bridge=movable and bridge:movable=* has at least one
useful
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:45PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:
The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old
National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
wrote:
For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's
worth mentioning that there's some non-survey-based editing going on:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:02:39AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
Richard,
Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related
to this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge
yes, I am pretty sure it was a desperate attempt to make
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:02AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that.
I have removed the area around this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25397414
and filed this ticket as it did not render sanely:
, when two or more parallel ways are in a bridge/viaduct, they are
drawn as separate bridges.
Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that.
Cheers,
John
2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
what else can I do?
Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag
man_made=bridge seems to be used worldwide [1] in some - more
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:25:33AM -0300, John Packer wrote:
Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to
make it render at all.
Note that bridges that are buildings actually exist. [1]
But adding building=* to a bridge when it's not the case would be
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:54:11AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess cahoess@gmail.c
caho...@gmail.com
As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding
some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:31:28PM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote :
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with
cave=yes. Other than that, I have no
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote:
I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature
to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be
applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing
hilly terrain; all of
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 05:50:06PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Il giorno 15/ago/2014, alle ore 23:52, St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl ha
scritto:
I would go for building=bridge, since a bridge is a building
actually a bridge isn't a building according to standard
i was also thinking about that. i think it is only neccesary if a former
nudist place is changed to a place where clothing is expected
in some areas nudism is so prevalent that it is a good idea to use
nudism=no in places where it is not expected/allowed. In other areas
it would not make
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:54:21PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Maybe a more generic tag like dress_code would also catch these places? This
was already proposed some time ago IIRR.
this was already discussed on some talk page - why can't I find it now? :(
It could also be
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
what else can I do?
Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag
man_made=bridge seems to be used worldwide [1] in some - more
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:08:25AM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote:
Hi everybody,
i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted
but is nevertheless in use.
Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote:
Hi,
yes i changed the values because i found the differentiation between
customary with prevalent nudity and permissive but not prevalent nudity
difficult.
But i had a mistake in my description, it should be:
designated to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Hi,
Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
* for ensuring good data; and
* to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right
Hi,
another mapper metnioned to me that it is unusual to have
attribute values with a minus, like
bridge:structure=cable-stayed
On the other hand, it is an apporved proposal - what are the
opinions on that?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:surface#maxspeed:practical
for proposed change
with 12000 ways already tagged maxspeed:practical and lack of alternatives
I would think twice removing any documentation.
Richard
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:55:15AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
2014-08-23 10:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
12 000 ways is really low number in this situation. Surface tag is used on
nearly 9 million roads, number of highway=* ways crossed
76 million.
possibly it is used
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:33:16PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Il giorno 23/ago/2014, alle ore 21:08, Ilpo Järvinen
ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi ha scritto:
How much of such ways that would be a candidate for maxspeed:practical
IMHO this is a highly subjective tag that
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
So which is the preferred tagging?
If waterway=wadi then I have some OSM editing to do but at least the renderer
should be easy. If waterway=stream, intermittent=yes then I need to get some
changes done by the project who's
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:43:36AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
I would modify the section [1] by replacing it is recommended by it
is suggested and adding at the end a note saying that a large part of
the community consider these two tags -smoothness and
maxspeed:practical - too subjective.
I have
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
