On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to
towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key
height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to
the top. There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so
that numbers in local
2012/2/20 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to
towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key
height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to
the top. There is also consensus to
As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would
mean that the ground level is at this height. In some specific cases
this might bring problems though: imagine a lot of stones and earth is
transported on the hilltop, the elevation clearly changes. If you
build a building
Hi,
On 02/20/2012 01:06 PM, LM_1 wrote:
As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would
mean that the ground level is at this height.
Should one not then, to avoid misunderstandings, use ele only on
ground-level features? We can define away on the wiki all we want;
Generelly yes, but if there is a tower on the summit, there is not
really any other way.
Lukáš
2012/2/20 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Hi,
On 02/20/2012 01:06 PM, LM_1 wrote:
As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would
mean that the ground level is at this
Hi,
On 02/20/2012 01:26 PM, LM_1 wrote:
Generelly yes, but if there is a tower on the summit, there is not
really any other way.
You would normally put a natural=peak tag next to the tower anyway. Or
if you don't, then attach ele to the bench near the base of the tower
or so ;)
Bye
At 2012-02-20 03:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to
towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key
height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to
the top. There is also consensus to tag
After questions on talk-it this wiki action was identified:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurfaceaction=historysubmitdiff=701000oldid=696691
Is it consensus to use sett instead of cobblestones for most of
the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only
At 2012-02-20 04:06, LM_1 wrote:
As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would
mean that the ground level is at this height.
I might add that, if you put a tower on top of the building, I'd expect the
ele tag on the tower to be the sum of the building's ele and height
At 2012-02-20 04:26, someone wrote:
We can define away on the wiki all we want; there will always be
people who read ele on a building to mean its height.
I think this may be a language issue. In American English at least, one
would not use/read the word elevation to mean the height of an
Hi,
Hi,On 02/20/2012 01:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I don't recall any discussion on this topic. Until now I thought it
was consensus to use the tags surface=cobblestones for more or less
uneven paving with stones and surface=paving_stones for more or less
even surfaces paved with stones.
On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Is it consensus to use sett instead of cobblestones for most of
the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with
sett.
How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap
to distinguish on a finer
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net writes:
This is the standard for FCC (communications) and FAA (airspace) in
the US. Well, close at least - elevations are generally above mean
sea level - I don't know how that relates to the WGS84/GPS and/or
survey elevation but I'd expect them to be
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the
case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain,
not the tower).
In practice, this is closest to how I would have interpreted it.
I would usually expect ele to define the
Martin
There is consensus that the key
height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to
the top.
+1 (I think there is no other way of doing it)
There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so
that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted
Am 20. Februar 2012 14:21 schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com:
There is consensus that the key
height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to
the top.
+1 (I think there is no other way of doing it)
well, you could say that height is the maximum vertical extension
Simple solution: use ele:top=* for the elevation of the top.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
The problem is that setts are often referred to as cobbles, in common
parlance. If someone tags something as cobbles, I'd probably reckon they
were actually setts 99% of the time.
http://g.co/maps/bnndk The stuff in the road is cobbles; in the gutter and
on the pavements is setts.
So having a
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 20. Februar 2012 14:21 schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com:
There is consensus that the key
height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to
the top.
+1 (I think there is no other way of doing it)
well, you could say that height is
On 2/20/2012 8:23 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
While we are discussing this, we should
also agree on how to tag bicycle lanes that are unmarked. We have a
surprising number of these in my area of the world. They have no signs
(I know, they are no longer required to) and no markings within the
Jonathan Bennett wrote:
In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and
non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think
surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag.
A sett (a word I've never heard before) is apparently colloquially
called cobblestone. To the
Probably better to introduce a new value to mean
yes-they-really-are-cobbles. Perhaps cobbles (as opposed to cobblestone)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Jonathan Bennett wrote:
In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and
On 20.02.12 12:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the
case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain,
not the tower).
elevation vs altitude vs height:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vertical_distances.svg
/al
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 02/20/2012 01:06 PM, LM_1 wrote:
As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it
would
mean that the ground level is at this height.
Should one not then, to avoid misunderstandings, use ele only on
ground-level
From what has been written here it seems that elevation clearly does
not contain buildings.
Frederik Ramm:
You would normally put a natural=peak tag next to the tower anyway.
Or if you don't, then attach ele to the bench near the base of the
tower or so ;)
Most peaks with some construction on
We recently had a discussion on the talk-ca list about named railway
locations that had been tagged as railway=station (see this thread).
It was proposed to take the discussion to the tagging list in order to
come to a consensus that's consistent and in line with other
countries.
To quickly
Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are
essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this
going a bit too far?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Well the British railway speak for such locations would probably be TRUST
reporting point or timing point. They are typically junctions, crossovers
or passing places (if there's no station). So I'm not sure there's a
public term available.
Maybe railway=location?
Richard
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at
Richard Mann wrote:
Maybe railway=location?
Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established place=locality
for tagging a 'lieu-dit'.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieu-dit: The name usually refers to some
characteristic of the place, its former use, a past event, etc.)
cheers
Yes, I remember *Adlestrop* ...
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Richard Mann wrote:
Maybe railway=location?
Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established
place=locality
for tagging a 'lieu-dit'.
Le lun. 20 f�vr. 2012 à 08:13 -0800, Richard Fairhurst a ecrit :
Richard Mann wrote:
Maybe railway=location?
Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established place=locality
for tagging a 'lieu-dit'.
railway=locality makes perfectly sense, indeed.
As a railway user, I found
One possibility is railway=station state=abandoned (where that's
correct, of course).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Richard Mann wrote:
Yes, I remember Adlestrop ...
...the name because one afternoon
Of inappropriate railway=station tagging the express train[1] drew up there
Unwontedly. It was late June.
cheers
Richard
[1] or at least, as near as we get to one on the Cotswold Line.
--
View this message
I would not do that or care for such information, but why not...
There is no too far
LM_1
2012/2/20 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are essentially
public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this going a bit too far?
On 2/20/2012 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are
essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this
going a bit too far?
I would say that it depends - if the mailbox is truly custom, and not
just a mass produced
Hi.
If it's an artwork, I would tag it as an artwork.
If it's a landmark (yes, that IS possible - if I think e.g. about some
areas in Sweden), I would probably tag as something like that
In no way I would tag the name of the owner as that dives IMHO too far
into privacy issues.
regards
Am 20. Februar 2012 15:11 schrieb Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
Probably better to introduce a new value to mean
yes-they-really-are-cobbles. Perhaps cobbles (as opposed to cobblestone)
+1, I also believe that we are lacking some additional tags for some
kinds of stone
Am 20. Februar 2012 17:13 schrieb Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established place=locality
for tagging a 'lieu-dit'.
+1
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
OK, following this discussion it seems clear that either nobody
interprets the wiki literally (the elevation at a given point), or
that the English term elevation never refers to man_made structures.
In each of these cases the tagged value for ele would be the elevation
of the surrounding ground.
Am 20. Februar 2012 14:43 schrieb Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
Simple solution: use ele:top=* for the elevation of the top.
if top is a reference system for elevation data...
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, following this discussion it seems clear that either nobody
interprets the wiki literally (the elevation at a given point), or
that the English term elevation never refers to man_made structures.
In each of these cases the tagged value for
On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net wrote:
I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread.
There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are
free to use *any* tags they like.
...
Advertise your
John F. Eldredge:
If a structure is located on sloping ground, do you record the elevation of the
highest point in contact with the structure, the lowest point, halfway between
the highest and lowest points, or what?
This is related to the question: Where do you measure the structure's
Am 20. Februar 2012 21:09 schrieb John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
If a structure is located on sloping ground, do you record the elevation of
the highest point in contact with the structure, the lowest point, halfway
between the highest and lowest points, or what?
The lowest point
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other tags,
sometimes with mass edits.
IMHO that doesn't follow at all. If people are doing unwanted mass
edits, then we should find a way to discourage them.
2012/2/20 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net:
Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine
detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak
out against mass edits that attempt to do just that.
I have to disagree. If the tag structure is not
That's some kind of consideration, like the one I proposed some time ago,
about building a clean tagging scheme, but has led to a discussion about
another topic and died.
My +1 will always go to cleaning.
Cheers,
Stefano
___
Tagging mailing list
Hi,
On 02/20/2012 10:59 PM, LM_1 wrote:
The possibility of free tags is great, but once some tagging style
proves as usable (and better than any other),
... which will never be the case ...
it should become a
standard and used exclusively
... in which geographic / cultural region?
Bye
48 matches
Mail list logo
