Am 22.03.2015 um 23:11 schrieb Warin:
On 23/03/2015 1:20 AM, fly wrote:
Am 17.03.2015 um 07:26 schrieb John Willis:
There was a big bruhaha about any mappers mapping Israeli military
installations. They were deleting everything and leaving notes not to
map things on that location, if I
Am 17.03.2015 um 07:26 schrieb John Willis:
On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
AKA military installations in certain countries I would happily map
military installation in Russia/North Korea/Iran/USA/whatever -
it is not illegal for me. Maybe they can
On 23/03/2015 1:20 AM, fly wrote:
Am 17.03.2015 um 07:26 schrieb John Willis:
There was a big bruhaha about any mappers mapping Israeli military
installations. They were deleting everything and leaving notes not to map
things on that location, if I remember correctly.
I don't know the
So theoretically, we shouldn't ban anything from being mapped (or almost
anything). But practically, we don't want people being routed to the
nearest toilet that is actually inside a power plant. How do we fix this?
One way could be to add a prefix like private:
to anything that is by default
2015-03-18 11:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
So theoretically, we shouldn't ban anything from being mapped (or almost
anything). But practically, we don't want people being routed to the
nearest toilet that is actually inside a power plant. How do we fix this?
if that toilet
2015-03-18 11:38 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and the
tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag is
for toilet[s] open to the public.
Well, it is a toilet, and it is an
2015-03-18 11:52 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
if that toilet is tagged with amenity=toilets it is a tagging error and
the tag should be fixed or the object completely removed. The toilets tag
is for toilet[s] open to the public.
Well, it is a toilet, and it is an amenity,
2015-03-18 12:15 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside
another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right.
Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets,
waste_disposals, and
Am I missing something here? What's the matter with the current schema? If it
is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not
amenity=toilet and access=private?
Or a better example, a toilet in a train station that is for staff only
amenity=toilet access=private or
2015-03-18 12:44 GMT+01:00 jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me:
Am I missing something here? What's the matter with the current schema?
If it is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not
amenity=toilet and access=private?
according to the current schema you cannot tag like this
2015-03-18 12:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
the operator doesn't tell you anything about access rights, property
structure, publicness etc.
It is about the entity _operating_ a feature / object / thing.
It doesn't, but it tells you who decides on those things.
2015-03-18 12:30 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside
another object with the same operator tag, if I got you right.
Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets,
waste_disposals, and so on.
I agree with Martin on not changing the definition of tags where public access,
or a subset of the public (customers) is inherent in the tags definition
through tag modifiers.
But everyone is envisioning a future where information about private facilities
would eventually become part of OSM -
Am 18.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
simply appending private: on existing public tags is not preferred, though
the simplest to execute and avoids having to redefine everything in the world
again.
I think prefixing private: is a viable idea, it can be easily
On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 14:47 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
simply appending private: on existing public tags is not preferred, though
the simplest to execute and avoids having to redefine everything
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
AKA military installations in certain countries I would happily map
military installation in Russia/North Korea/Iran/USA/whatever -
it is not illegal for me. Maybe they can make laws making it
AKA military installations in certain countries I would happily map
military installation in Russia/North Korea/Iran/USA/whatever -
it is not illegal for me. Maybe they can make laws making it illegal for
their citizens to do this, but is it changing anything for me?
2015-03-17 6:57 GMT+01:00
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/272142911/history
ps - that is a work yard next to a substation. And I have driven to work yards
to repair computers, and I would sure like to know where the driveway is.
The actual driveway in the substation is not mapped, though the gates to enter
are
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:57 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
so the driveways are bad, but the powerlines are good?
I was referring to the dumpster (the rolling trash can mapped twice within
the substation).
___
Tagging mailing list
Ahh. That makes more sense.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Javbw
On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:57 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
so the driveways are bad, but the powerlines are good?
I was referring to the
Not sure what you mean by “Private Objects”, anything in the DB is capable of
being displayed, depending on whether the Renderer wants to. Nothing is
Private in OSM.
Jonathan
---
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: John F. Eldredge
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Does the default rendering on the slippy map on OSM's main page show
private objects? If it does, then there is a loss of privacy. If it
doesn't, then there is a loss of feedback to mappers.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
On 17/03/2015 10:46 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Please do not map private objects in private space. In general if
the object could create a privacy concern, or is just not useful to
a member of the public, please don't add it to the database. Note
it is fully OK to map facilities within
so the driveways are bad, but the powerlines are good?
Aren’t the driveways in a substation part of the stubsation, just like like all
the other detail that is recorded for the powerline system or fence for the
substation?
I am against rendering.. umm.. “distribution” lines, but if mapping
I almost, but not quite, pressed delete on these:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/272142910/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/272142911/history
They're private objects within a private gated electrical substation.
Similar to toilets inside people's homes, it feels like these should not
25 matches
Mail list logo
