On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 16:00 Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag?
> When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag the object
> also will still be correctly tagged :)
>
You're right, I meant the whole information is still there.
sent from a phone
> On 21. Sep 2020, at 15:36, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>
> or if someone outright deletes the utility tag, that power pole is still
> correctly tagged.
if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag?
When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag the
There are a lot of big power towers that carry an optical communications
line together with the power lines. Would that be
utility=power;communication?
Adding specific implied information is not wrong, but data consumers
shouldn't rely on them. If someone changes utility=power to
utility=communica
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags
> in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous.
>
> Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads
>
sent from a phone
> On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this
> particular situation?
utility=power seems to be a redundant concept in general (you can see which
kind of lines are attached - if they
sent from a phone
> On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this
> particular situation?
while I am personally not unsatisfied with power=pole I could understand that
people who want to deprecate this t
The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags
in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous.
Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads and
"oneway=yes" on motorways to make the situation explicit.
But the original question was abou
Thank you all for replies
Then the current proposal sounds to be ok regarding what is said upside.
I admit to automatically adding implied tags when importing data covered by
the proposal, so no apparent problem is mappers add them explicitly.
All the best
François
Le jeu. 17 sept. 2020 à 15:11
+1.
Explicit tagging indicates a level of confidence not generally associated
with implicit tagging. While there's certainly an 'ad nauseum' level of
doing so (e.g. adding surface=paved, motor_vehicle=yes to highway=motorway
in the U.S. would be kinda silly, IMO), there are plenty of cases where a
On 16/09/2020 18.32, Paul Johnson wrote:
No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly. It's actually
encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by
automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be
ambiguous between "you can't turn from this lane"
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if
> they want to?
> The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an
> error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags.
>
No, it's not wrong to ad
Hi all,
This proposal is currently in RFC
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_poles_proposal
It proposes among other points to make man_made=utility_pole +
utility=power implied by power=pole (for sake of consistency with telecom
utility poles which won't get a telecom=p
12 matches
Mail list logo
