2014-11-04 22:56 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been
approved by voting just 2 years ago.
arguably it is not too late, there are only 450 uses of arete by now (and
17K+ ridges). Please also note that the tag
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-11-04 22:56 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at:
This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been
approved by voting just 2 years ago.
arguably it is not too late, there are
2014-11-05 12:23 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
after two years in the wiki where it was marked as approved and active it
would not appear as a great idea to declare the vote for invalid based on
nitpicking formalities, how many votes were missing for approval?
it was 50% missing
On 05.11.2014 10:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
arguably it is not too late, there are only 450 uses of arete by now (and
17K+ ridges).
450 uses are quite a lot for a feature that is constantly ignored by renderers.
For the same reason, I suppose that some of the 17K+ ridges were created by
On 05.11.2014 12:23, Richard Z. wrote:
Another reason I don't like current arete/ridge state is that some ridges are
very long - and they may be partially arete and ridge in different segments.
Having a way that is tagged partially as natural=ridge and partially as
natural=arete seems like a
This doesn't matter in this particular case, because natural=ridge and
natural=arete were approved at the same time.
It is about futureproof solution - new values may appear and break existing
data consumers. Adding subtags would not cause problems like this.
That's why we have a wiki with
Hi,
following some discussions on github (1) and talk-at (2) I have tried
to clarify the definition of natural=ridge in the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dridgediff=1104725oldid=998905
Not sure if this is good enough, personaly I would prefer a single ridge
I think that natural=arete should be rather subtag of natural=ridge
(natural=ridge; ridge=arete).
It is opening way for next specialized tags - what will make using data
significantly harder.
2014-11-04 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
Hi,
following some discussions on github
2014-11-04 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
personaly I would prefer a single ridge
key with additional subkeys denoting properties such as gentle,sharp, cliff
ridges.
+1
or the subkey variant Mateusz has offered.
cheers,
Martin
On 04.11.2014 14:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
I think that natural=arete should be rather subtag of natural=ridge
(natural=ridge; ridge=arete).
This discussion comes late. Both natural=ridge and natural=arete have been
approved by voting just 2 years ago. And I think that there's nothing wrong
Whether to use subtags is mainly a matter of taste.
No. Lets say that there is something with four main values that are
noticeable for general public and several subtypes, important for
specialists.
For data consumers interested in just four values version with subtags
is vastly easier to use
11 matches
Mail list logo
