2010/4/12 John Smith :
> I updated the ticket I submitted the other day for surface=sand to be
> rendered the same as natural=beach
>
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873
I updated the wiki-description for surface (included other areas than highways).
cheers,
Martin
__
2010/4/12 John Smith :
> On 12 April 2010 09:09, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> Sand is not a necessary element of a beach in any case. In fact, the
>> original meaning of 'beach' was: 'The loose water-worn pebbles of the
>> sea-shore; shingle.'
>
> All this means is that sand is assumed, since natural=bea
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:20 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> surface=* ... is already
> widely used, and not just for highways/paths...
The following needs updating, then, to generalise to the surface of
any feature (not just roads/footpaths):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface
___
On 12 April 2010 15:05, Stephen Hope wrote:
> My personal opinion is that we should separate out the cover tags from
> landuse into some other tag (doesn't have to be landcover). Not
> because this is required, or it for easier searching, though they may
> be side benefits. Simply because having
On 12 April 2010 14:20, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then?
> (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse)
It seems inconsistent with other landuses such as residential,
industrial, commercial etc.
> Well, the wiki page f
It sounds to me like we're getting back to the old argument about the
difference between land-use and land-cover. Unfortunately, tags for
both have been lumped together into landuse=*, (as well as some
natural, man-made etc) which is why the debate reoccurs so often.
Sand is a cover, not a use. S
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> On 12 April 2010 07:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for
>> "roads/footpaths" (although strangely it's also used for
>
> Why does the surface tag have to be limited to roads/footpaths?
I
On 12 April 2010 09:09, Steve Doerr wrote:
> Sand is not a necessary element of a beach in any case. In fact, the
> original meaning of 'beach' was: 'The loose water-worn pebbles of the
> sea-shore; shingle.'
All this means is that sand is assumed, since natural=beach renders as
a yellow colour.
From: "John Smith"
> I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also
> have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is
> also sand in deserts, and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't
> part of a beach either.
Sand is not a necessary element of a bea
On 12 April 2010 07:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for
> "roads/footpaths" (although strangely it's also used for
Why does the surface tag have to be limited to roads/footpaths?
> leisure=pitch's - seems the wiki needs updating). And landus
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:18 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something.
>
> I was hoping for something a little more generic
Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for
"roads/footpa
2010/4/11 John Smith :
> On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something.
>
> I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also
> have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is
> also sand in dese
On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something.
I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also
have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is
also sand in deserts, and sand dunes that aren't d
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> I don't see an overly compelling reason to change the existing tag,
Me either. In my previous post I was actually trying to point out the
problems with the landuse tag, rather than advocate it.
I think natural=beach is fine to describe an ar
On 11 April 2010 11:23, Dave F. wrote:
> Not wanting to hijack this thread onto another subject, but the general
> problem is using adjectives (natural) instead of nouns (landuse) for
Most sand is the product of a natural process, rather than being
created even if it's moved, just like all plants
Lennard wrote:
> On 11-4-2010 0:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
>
>> city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=beach. But in Australia
>> sand, is frequently dumped on beaches bordering the sea, to "top up"
>> the sand for the tourists. At what point would that change from
>> natural=beach to landuse=
On 11 April 2010 09:03, Liz wrote:
> +1 for landuse=beach, providing that includes beach below high tide mark, and
> hoping that no person thinks that should be seause=beach
I don't see an overly compelling reason to change the existing tag,
however there are things like golf course bunkers that
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Roy Wallace wrote:
> The only alternative I see is landuse=beach, which I think would be
> ok, if there were a clear distinction between this and natural=beach.
> For a "beach" created by dumping a bunch of sand in the middle of a
> city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=be
On 11 April 2010 08:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
> The only alternative I see is landuse=beach, which I think would be
> ok, if there were a clear distinction between this and natural=beach.
> For a "beach" created by dumping a bunch of sand in the middle of a
> city, to me, that's pretty clearly landus
On 11-4-2010 0:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
> city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=beach. But in Australia
> sand, is frequently dumped on beaches bordering the sea, to "top up"
> the sand for the tourists. At what point would that change from
> natural=beach to landuse=beach?
Not just for touris
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:36 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> I don't think it matters if it's a man made beach or not, natural=tree
> is used for planter boxes in the middle of the street, I'm pretty sure
> that isn't 100% natural :)
Hmm. Yes, we also have natural=water whether it's "natural" or
not...
On 11 April 2010 01:04, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I see you filed this ticket for natural=sand. This doesn't literally
> apply to berlin beaches, as they are all man_made. That's why I
> suggested surface=sand (doesn't matter if it's natural or not).
I don't think it matters if it's a man made
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
an John
Details anzeigen 17:04 (Vor 0 Minuten)
2010/4/10 John Smith :
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
> On 11 April 2010 00:18, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> btw.: what about tagging (and rendering) surface=sand ? IMHO the
>> beaches-hack is not to be kept eterna
On 11 April 2010 00:18, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> btw.: what about tagging (and rendering) surface=sand ? IMHO the
> beaches-hack is not to be kept eternally...
It doesn't look like anyone ever filed a bug about this, so I just added one:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873
___
2010/4/9 Richard Welty :
> many towns in upstate NY have town beaches on local lakes.
In Berlin we have beaches (Oststrand [1+2] ) at the river and even in
the zoo ;-) [3]
cheers,
Martin
btw.: what about tagging (and rendering) surface=sand ? IMHO the
beaches-hack is not to be kept eternally...
On Saturday 10 April 2010 08:44:43 Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> > In OSM the coastline is not defined that way.
>
> Please! There is no definition, if you want to define your
> beach/waterline as mapped in a specific tide then tag the waterline as
> suc
Cartinus wrote:
> On Thursday 08 April 2010 22:00:54 John Smith wrote:
>
>> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach
>>
>>
>>> "Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way.
This is not the case. Many lakes have beaches, either natural or even
man made.
>>> Do not us
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> On Friday 09 April 2010 09:03:03 John Smith wrote:
>> Although that brings up another issue about how coastlines are legally
>> defined as being at the mean low tide mark
>
> Actually this is completely irrelevant.
>
> In OSM the coastline is not d
On 4/9/10 4:29 PM, Liz wrote:
>
> Interesting that the wiki writer said that all beaches were on a coastline.
> Rivers here have beaches, and they have names like "Town Beach" (Tocumwal)
> "Wagga Beach" (Wagga Wagga).
>
many towns in upstate NY have town beaches on local lakes.
richard
_
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, John Smith wrote:
> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach
>
> > "Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use
> > this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note
> > that the natural=coastline should ideally be positione
"Cartinus" wrote in
message news:201004090234.51222.carti...@xs4all.nl...
> For everyone who has never seen the sea
>
> Commonly a sandy beach consists of a dry part with loose sand above the
> high
> tide line and a wet part with compact sand between the low and high tide
> lines. What th
On Friday 09 April 2010 09:03:03 John Smith wrote:
> Although that brings up another issue about how coastlines are legally
> defined as being at the mean low tide mark
Actually this is completely irrelevant.
In OSM the coastline is not defined that way.
--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus
___
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:03 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 10:34, Cartinus wrote:
>> For everyone who has never seen the sea
>
> Seeing the sea isn't the problem, the sea is only a few blocks from here.
>
>> Commonly a sandy beach consists of a dry part with loose sand above the hig
On 9 April 2010 10:34, Cartinus wrote:
> For everyone who has never seen the sea
Seeing the sea isn't the problem, the sea is only a few blocks from here.
> Commonly a sandy beach consists of a dry part with loose sand above the high
> tide line and a wet part with compact sand between the
On Thursday 08 April 2010 22:00:54 John Smith wrote:
> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach
>
> > "Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use
> > this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note
> > that the natural=coastline should ideall
On 9 April 2010 08:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/4/8 John Smith :
>> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach
>>
>>> "Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use
>>> this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note that
>>> the natur
2010/4/8 John Smith :
> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach
>
>> "Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use
>> this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note that
>> the natural=coastline should ideally be positioned at the average h
>From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach
> "Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use this
> tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note that the
> natural=coastline should ideally be positioned at the average high tide line,
> which may
38 matches
Mail list logo
