Commands wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 10:01:13 +0200
> > From: bkil
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
> >
> [...]
>
> > Also, currently I se
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 10:01:13 +0200
From: bkil
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
[...]
Also, currently I see each of your replies as a new message thread,
unrelated to one another. Could you
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 10:09, bkil wrote:
You've described the difference between specifying the high level landuse
> in an area (that may be even a few blocks large) compared to the proposed
> micro-mapping on buildings. This is correct, but I would like to know the
> reason, meaning what
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in formulating the questions, I'll try
to rephrase my inquiries again below.
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:09 PM ET Commands wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200
> > From: bkil
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging building
nds wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 20:46:28 +0100
> > From: Paul Allen
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
> >
> > On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 20:46:28 +0100
From: Paul Allen
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands wrote:
My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact. For
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands wrote:
My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact. For example, I can
> see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
> lot. I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
> but I have no idea what
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 12:47:37 +0100
From: Paul Allen
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 10:51, bkil wrote:
By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid des
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200
From: bkil
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would
need more information to see what we could
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 20:24:54 -0400
From: Kevin Kenny
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
following that, building=yes building:use=yes is bett
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 17:05:14 +
From: marc marc
To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
building=occupied
building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-loo
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 10:51, bkil wrote:
> By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag
> these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I
> looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building , on
> the fence and in WLAN and
By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag
these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I
looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building
itself, on the fence and in WLAN and PAN in the air and tried to research
these on
I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would
need more information to see what we could gain from it.
landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do
we need to tag this on a building resolution?
What data consumers did you have in mind?
sent from a phone
> On 23. May 2019, at 19:05, marc marc wrote:
>
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
+1, seems to reflect the amount of
24 May 2019, 02:24 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
>
>> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
>> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
>> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
>>
>
On 24/05/19 10:24, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
I'm even fine with
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer
On 24/05/19 03:05, marc marc wrote:
Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
building=occupied
Homes and apartments are also 'occupied'. So that is not what you are after.
Humm .. 'productive'???
building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-look building with a
Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
> building=occupied
building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-look building with a residential use, is still a
industrial-look and is mapped with :
building=industrial building:use=residential
following that, building=yes
In the course of my mapping I sometimes encounter buildings that I know
people work in, but I don't know what kind of business is being
conducted in the building. These buildings could contain offices, or
medical facilities, or factories, or warehouses, or retail, or just
about anything else,
21 matches
Mail list logo
