On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.
I suggest you start marking buildings which are within 50 meters of
each other with denotation=cluster next.
The more facts, the better.
On 10/09/2010 04:54, NopMap wrote:
Hi!
Because you only can assume that something probably is a landmark.
But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.
But you're making assumptions that it's not a landmark.
IMO, 50 metres does not make a cluster.
- Original Message -
From: NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de
To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Hi!
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
so 2 trees are a cluster? IMHO that's also agains your own
intentions, because 2
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
important about the fact that the tree is standing alone that it needs to
specifically be tagged as standing (or not standing) alone?
David,
On 10/09/2010 11:14, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Lulu-Ann wrote:
I would like to add loc_name-tags for this and name ways like footway from village
A to B, west of footway crossing in MyWoodName
Yes: Don't use loc_name (or any other key that contains name) for
this. It's not a name. It's a
Serge
Thank you for such a very helpful and clear summary. I had tried to follow
from the start of the thread, but I couldn't see through it with the clarity
you have managed.
See some of my points below.
- Original Message -
From: Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com
To: Tag
Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.
Thank you for this summary.
I agree to your position.
I notice today a bot (called Nop) has starting changing tag on single
tree by adding denotation=cluster
I don't know what it means and what
He noted earlier in the thread that the bot is tagging any tree that is within
50 meters of another tree as denotation=cluster. The wiki says to use this
notation for trees that are not single trees, but does not specify what
distance distinguishes a single tree from a cluster of trees.
John F. Eldredge wrote:
He noted earlier in the thread that the bot is tagging any tree that is
within 50 meters of another tree as denotation=cluster.
The wiki says to use this notation for trees that are not single trees, but
does not specify what distance distinguishes a single tree from
2010/9/10 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
For the record, I think that the denotation=cluster tag is a bad idea.
It's vague, overlaps with the other values of denotation and doesn't add
any information that wasn't there before.
as I already expressed here: I completely agree.
cheers,
A few corrections are in order...
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a lone tree
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
The wiki says: lone or significant tree and I interpret that as a
prominent tree.
Serge
I'd like to get some feedback from the community on possible inclusion of
emergency shelter in a social facility feature. I was discussing this
with the author of that proposal, kerosin, as I'd like to fold the Homeless
Shelter proposal into Social Facility.
After just a little research, the
On 9/10/10 4:27 PM, NopMap wrote:
A few corrections are in order...
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a lone tree
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
The wiki says: lone or significant tree and I interpret that as a
Hi!
John F. Eldredge wrote:
Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:
Tagging ML:
Anthony-6: Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
retagged?
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: can't you do
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
I did what was asked for. You can't mark landmarks automatically, but can
add a hint to those that are likely unremarkable. Since it is just an
additional tag, it is non-destructive, unlike re-inventing the tagging
scheme. If you
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.
I suggest you start marking buildings which are within 50 meters of
each other
Actually, I did not write the statement quoted below. I posted a reply to
Pierre-Alain Dorange, who had made the quoted statement. I explained to
Pierre-Alain that the bot was reportedly tagging any tree within 50 meters of
any other tree as a cluster. Incidentally, doing so is the opposite
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
mostly remedied. If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 5
18 matches
Mail list logo
