On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmannb...@volki.at wrote:
It should rather be a type=collection relation.
I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All
relations are collections.
At least it is semantically correct, while
Il giorno 07/ago/2013, alle ore 20:01, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com ha
scritto:
Note there is overlap between amentiy=ranger_station and tourism=information.
A ranger station generally provides information in addition to other
services. In the USA ranger stations have well
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 02:13, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com
ha scritto:
Can I have
waterway=dam
highway=*
you could, but I'd suggest to use distinct objects and add layer tags to one in
order to define stacking.
Cheers,
Martin
Hi,
Thanks to all who responded.
On 2013-08-08 06:40, malenki wrote :
You could map the dam as area with the highway crossing it.
Yes, I finally did that. Even if the dam is a mere 6.5 m wide, it makes
sense.
On 2013-08-08 02:49, Paul Johnson wrote :
I don't see how those tags are mutually
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 06.08.2013 15:51, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866
which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation.
Unfortunately, the relation has some problems:
- not rendered anywhere?
This is a
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 17:47, Yuri D'Elia
wav...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto:
Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location
sounds reasonable.
thing is that place=locality is very generic, you don't get additional
information what the name refers to,
On 08/08/2013 07:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location
sounds reasonable.
thing is that place=locality is very generic, you don't get additional
information what the name refers to, especially if tagged on a node
Understood.
On 08/08/2013 08:56 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich
Volkmannb...@volki.at wrote:
It should rather be a type=collection relation.
I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All
relations are
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are
fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of
such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication
for the name placement.
On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
It should rather be a type=collection relation.
I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All
relations are collections.
+100
Especially, if you read: Relations
On 06.08.2013 19:25, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
The message from fly, about about boundary=topologic/geographic though
would solve nicely valleys, mountain groups _and_ other topographic
features under a single umbrella, and it's quite easy to achieve.
to fly: Is this some form of official
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 20:45, Yuri D'Elia
wav...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto:
I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation
with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region,
region:type=valley?
I'd use type=multipolygon
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
Il giorno 07/ago/2013, alle ore 20:01, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
ha scritto:
Note there is overlap between amentiy=ranger_station and
tourism=information. A ranger station generally provides
Hello,
OSM currently has no hiking tracks mapped in Brazil. We are now
receiving (copyright-free) POIs of hiking tracks (representing where
they start) from a local mapping community (which gathered this data
for over a decade). Unfortunately, we do not have the details of the
tracks yet, but I
On 08.08.2013 19:39, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often
used for features on multiple sites.
[...]
What about type=site with the appropriate natural tag?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
See my paragraph
On 08.08.2013 21:15, fly wrote:
On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote:
I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All
relations are collections.
+100
Especially, if you read: Relations are not meant to be used as collections
It is interesting that you agree by +100 although
What you are looking for is a tagging for trailhead I suppose.
Are these trails signed (trailblazed)?
I notice that the National Park OSM initiative does not propose an OSM tag
for their trailhead sign (see:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_National_Park_Service_Tagging)
I personally would
Hi,
I don't think that kind a sign with a label hiking path starts is a
attraction. Maybe you are locking for something like this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost
Henning
___
Tagging mailing list
18 matches
Mail list logo
