Except cases where there is a clear agreement that some scheme is clearly
preferable,
but in such cases it is extremely rare for such scheme to gain comparable
popularity.
Jul 21, 2020, 15:25 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> Please let us not forget that the wiki is supposed to document what is used
Jul 21, 2020, 15:21 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>
>>> It is totally NERDY.
>>>
>> What you mean by that?
>>
>
> There are two very different things:
> * IT
> * coding
>
> IT considers wider/higher-level things like stability,
2020-07-21, an, 15:17 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> Because despite claims mentioned above - there are also people preferring the
> second schema,
> it is not case of "iD developers vs community" like it is/was with some case.
Situation when there are no barriers to changing widely
> Tomas Straupis hat am 21. Juli 2020 um 15:21
> geschrieben:
>
> IT considers wider/higher-level things like stability, quality of
> the final product, documentation, usability etc. etc. IT expertise is
> gained by years of doing work on IT (coding is NOT IT expertise).
>
> Only
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:23, Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> 2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> >> It is totally NERDY.
> > What you mean by that?
>
> There are two very different things:
> * IT
> * coding
>
Such a simple world you live in. There is a third thing you
Please let us not forget that the wiki is supposed to document what is used
in OSM. In this case it should say that two schemes exist, and, if we have
good numbers for the relative use, we can add that.
Putting an advice to prefer one or the other is not within the scope of the
wiki in such a
2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>> It is totally NERDY.
> What you mean by that?
There are two very different things:
* IT
* coding
IT considers wider/higher-level things like stability, quality of
the final product, documentation, usability etc. etc. IT
Jul 21, 2020, 12:13 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Am 21.07.2020 um 10:55 schrieb Tomas Straupis:
>
>> 2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
>>
>>> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
>>> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
>>>
>> There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema
Jul 21, 2020, 10:18 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Hi,
>
> the wiki [1] states for riverbanks that
>
> "These water areas should be tagged as either of waterway=riverbank OR
> natural=water + water=river."
>
> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
> waterway=riverbank is
Jul 21, 2020, 10:55 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
>
>> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
>> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
>>
>
> There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as
> natural=water, reservoirs as
There is no way to calculate the "opinnion" of the community and
authoritarian/dictator attitude of iD coders and lack of action ramped
up usage of nerdy schema close to original OSM one.
And there is nobody bold to solve this, as there is no governing
body/expert group.
Local
2020-07-21, an 13:15, dktue rašė:
>
> So why can't the wiki state: "If you tag, then please do so using
> waterway=riverbank" (as this is preferred by the *community*)?
>
There is no way to calculate the "opinnion" of the community and
authoritarian/dictator attitude of iD coders and lack of
Am 21.07.2020 um 10:55 schrieb Tomas Straupis:
2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
waterway=riverbank is preferred?
There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as
natural=water, reservoirs as landuse=reservoir,
2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as
natural=water, reservoirs as landuse=reservoir, riverbanks as
waterway=riverbank etc. It is a
Hi,
the wiki [1] states for riverbanks that
"These water areas should be tagged as either of waterway=riverbank OR
natural=water + water=river."
Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
waterway=riverbank is preferred?
Cheers
dktue
[1]
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 16.04.2013 11:53, Pieren wrote:
I'm not sure that the New tagging of riverbanks has been really
adopted, excepted by the 16 who approved it on the wiki
Just for clarity: A redefinition of riverbanks has *not* been
On 16.04.2013 16:46, Pieren wrote:
You say that a redefinition of riverbanks has not been approved but
the current wiki page says the opposite:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
[...]
== New tagging ==
A new tagging schema has been approved...
... The ways around
2013/4/16 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
So that entire paragraph could in fact be replaced with An approved
proposal suggests to tag riverbank areas as natural=water + water=river.
Even then, the waterway=riverbank tag should be kept for compatibility.
+1, for the current state. Still,
18 matches
Mail list logo
