On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
My main argument is that I see addresses as a separate map feature in
their own right. An further more as there can be a M-N relationship between
addresses and POIs I think it's a bad idea to overload them on a
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses upon
POIs. My main argument is that I see addresses as a separate map feature in
their own right.
+1, I agree with that, but isn't the logical consequence to tag them
on
On 5 December 2012 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses upon
POIs. My main argument is that I see addresses as a separate map feature
in
their own
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses
upon POIs. My main argument is that I see addresses as a separate map
feature
in their own right.
+1, I agree
On 5 December 2012 14:23, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses
upon POIs. My main argument is that I
On 05.12.2012 01:19, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Really no need for relations here.
It may not be strictly necessary, but it is still an option to consider.
Representing addresses as a relation lets you express:
* ... multiple objects that have the same address
That address can be tagged on the
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik
display a house number. But speaking of Mapnik... if there are 5 POIs in a
house, and Mapnik has no signature for those POIs, it displays the house
2012/12/4 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik
display a house number. But speaking of Mapnik... if there are 5 POIs in a
house, and Mapnik has no signature for
Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
One principle I like in OSM is one feature, one OSM element:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
An address is not a feature. An address is an attribute of a feature.
An address never exists on its own in the real world. There
Am 04/dic/2012 um 11:16 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik
display a house number. But speaking of Mapnik... if there are 5 POIs in a
house, and
2012/12/4 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
One principle I like in OSM is one feature, one OSM element:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
An address is not a feature. An address is an attribute of a feature. An
address never
2012/12/4 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
if you see the address as feature it should be an area and not a
node, but if you add it to a POI I'd see it as an attribute and there
is no problem in adding it multiple times. Putting an address-node on
a building-outline to mark an
On 4 December 2012 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
Am 04/dic/2012 um 11:16 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik
display a
2012/12/4 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com:
2012/12/4 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
if you see the address as feature it should be an area and not a
node, but if you add it to a POI I'd see it as an attribute and there
is no problem in adding it multiple times. Putting
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
In my book addresses are features in their own right and should not be mixed
in the same element as amenities or shops. The first problem would be that
it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same time.
this depends
On 4 December 2012 13:23, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
In my book addresses are features in their own right and should not be
mixed
in the same element as amenities or shops. The first problem would be
that
it would
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same
time.
this depends entirely on your rendering rules.
How would you devise a rendering rule that makes an intelligible map with
two icons mapped on top of each other on
On 4 December 2012 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same
time.
this depends entirely on your rendering rules.
How would you devise a rendering
On 04.12.2012 13:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
If there really is a need to bind address and POI together then create a
relation for that.
-1, this would be breaking a fly on the wheel (or shooting with
cannons on sparrows as we say in
Am 04.12.2012 22:27, schrieb Markus Lindholm:
On 4 December 2012 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com
mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
it would make it impossible to render
On 5 December 2012 05:56, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
I don't see why that's more a problem in one node than in different ones -
except that the current rendering rules don't fit here. In that your
argumentation sounds much like a tagging-for-the-renderer-argumentation.
On 02.12.2012 16:26, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Ronnie Soak wrote:
Several addresses per building: addr:* tags on entrance nodes along the
building outline.
Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several addresses, each address
on different streets; none of the addresses is a
On 02.12.2012 18:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/12/2 Kytömaa Laurilauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several addresses, each address
on different streets; none of the addresses is a primary address, and all
staircases of said building are
Ronnie Soak wrote:
Several addresses per building: addr:* tags on entrance nodes along the
building outline.
Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several addresses,
each address on different streets; none of the addresses is a primary
address, and all staircases of said
2012/12/2 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several addresses,
each address on different streets; none of the addresses is a primary
address, and all staircases of said building are referenced just with a
letter after any of the
On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/12/2 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
Just a reminder that in many countries buildings can have several
addresses, each address on different streets; none of the addresses is
a primary address, and all staircases of said building are
Hi Rob,
We already had this discussion some time ago. There wasn't a complete
consensus on the matter, but here is how I tag now:
One amenity per building: the addr: tags and the amenity tags on the
building outline. One or multiple entrance nodes on the outline.
Several amenities per building,
-- Forwarding message from talk as more appropriate to tagging list
--
Hi,
A mapper who is new to my area is interested in mapping disabled access at
a micro level. Specifically he would like to achieve door-to-door mapping
for key shops and amenities, and has made a good start
28 matches
Mail list logo
