On 9/8/17 9:34 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
>>> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
>>> to the
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea whether the elevations, be they in feet or metres,
> are all respecting the wiki definition of being the height above MSL
> according to EGM96 (not sure what that would mean in landlocked areas)
Also, I doubt anyone in ordinary life refers to a mountain as "Mount
So-and-So 2000 meters", rather than simply "Mount So-and-So".
On September 8, 2017 8:36:52 AM Richard Welty wrote:
On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike
On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
>> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
>> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
>> to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point"
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
> to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point
> 11,463 ft."[2]
Le 08. 09. 17 à 11:14, Janko Mihelić a écrit :
> 20155.9894568543 ft
your unreasonable example has nothing to do with elevation.
in any tag, nothing prevents a tool from being rational
in the values it saves or displays. I do not know what is
the best possible accuracy but an altitude measurement
Elevation doesn't go in "name" tag, that's quite obvious. But I think
elevations in feet shouldn't be discouraged. Maybe sometimes you have
iconic elevations of mountains in feet everybody knows and learns in
school, and they want to see that number exactly on a map, and not some
fraction after
On 08/09/2017 09:54, Colin Smale wrote:
Does anyone have any idea whether the elevations, be they in feet or
metres, are all respecting the wiki definition of being the height
above MSL according to EGM96 (not sure what that would mean in
landlocked areas) and NOT WGS84 or (strictly
The wiki page for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele says it
has to be in meters, not in feets.
--
Lukas Sommer
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Does anyone have any idea whether the elevations, be they in feet or
metres, are all respecting the wiki definition of being the height above
MSL according to EGM96 (not sure what that would mean in landlocked
areas) and NOT WGS84 or (strictly speaking) relative to local MSL?
The wiki page for
Or, indeed, you could put a conversion in the editor between the mapper typing
a figure in and the elevation being saved to the database.
--
Andrew
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: 08 September 2017 02:59:39
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re:
Le 07. 09. 17 à 23:31, Mike Thompson a écrit :
> he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point 11,463 ft.
> it does say "Name is the name only"[3].
as the wiki says: the name is only the name.
"Crown Point 11,463 ft" is not a name.
Elevation goes in the "ele" tag.
in meters if it's only a number.
add
On 08-Sep-17 09:10 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Adding numeric values to the name of a peak is not okay. As for using
feet in the "ele" tag instead of meters, JOSM discourages this
practice and I think we should too. It's long past the time when
Americans and other countries still using archaic
Adding numeric values to the name of a peak is not okay. As for using feet
in the "ele" tag instead of meters, JOSM discourages this practice and I
think we should too. It's long past the time when Americans and other
countries still using archaic and cumbersome measurement systems based on
the
ele can of course be in feett or lightyears for that matter, but it's a lot
easier to work with if they are all in the same unit.
2017-09-08 0:22 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 08-Sep-17 07:39 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2017 04:31 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> User
On 08-Sep-17 07:39 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 09/07/2017 04:31 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in
feet) to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown
On 09/07/2017 04:31 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in
> feet) to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown
> Point 11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki
Sounds like tagging for the renderer to me.
There is a elevation tag already defined and in wide spread use. And it is
pretty easy for a renderer to show that in addition to the name. And even
convert it from meters to feet when doing the rendering. I do this when
rendering my personal use
User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point
11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki doesn't specifically address the issue of
elevation as
19 matches
Mail list logo