2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable
right of access supported by law.
Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can
walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-03-30 4:01 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com:
They are just private facilities, but they should be properly tagged as a
camp site, as people drive long distances to take scouts there, so they
should be
2015-04-05 0:12 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
This mailing list community veers toward nit picking and bike shedding,
and tends to block rather than guide forward change. It's also a tiny
fraction of the mapping community, which is sad.
*Published *in
On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right
of access supported by law.
Permissive implies something far
+1, Totally agree with this. I think I also mentioned the be in proposal
for an extended period before. Give a tagging scheme the time to mature,
new variations/needs might pop up only after a couple of months.
regards
m
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
Don't mistake voting with documenting. And btw: neither the one nor the
other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag.
2015-04-07 13:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2015-04-07 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
Especially there should be no vote
In my opinion changing the word doesn't get rid of the problem. Especially
if the word - no matter if it is published, approved, whatever - is the
result of another glorious vote. There should be no vote at the end of
any discussion, because the discussion never ends! Especially there should
be no
I agree with fly that it would be good to actually change the proposal page
to make it closer resemble the tag description page. Currently it mainly
addresses the RFC process and questions. As the result, there is no good
page for which we could vote. All discussion could be moved to the Talk
2015-04-07 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
Especially there should be no vote before the tag is used on a wide base
and proves itself!
If different mappers use the same tag for different purposes we got a real
problem, because you won't be able to tell what a tag on a
2015-04-07 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than
tags that are already in use.
+-0, typically mappers want to use the same tags that other users also use
to make usage of the map data easier (i.e. they
2015-04-07 13:33 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
Don't mistake voting with documenting. And btw: neither the one nor
the other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag.
the difference is that someone who has a different idea of the definition
of a proposal in draft or proposed
Here again comes the spirit of approved, i.e. voted-on tags :-(
If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than
tags that are already in use. A proposal should be the documentation of new
tags that are actually used(!).
A proposal should not be a drawing board idea that
2015-04-05 9:59 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
No. The correct way is
man_made=water_tap
drinking_water=yes
See the wiki.. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap
The addition of amenity=drinking_water may get it rendered .. but that is
just tagging for the
2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
Check out sport=model_aerodrome.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome
this looks like a bad tag, because aerodrome is a place and not a kind of
sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yesterday the Easter eggs were dropping from model airplanes. Of course I
want to map where this happened and were this club has their airfield.
Check out sport=model_aerodrome.
2015-04-07 15:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
I was refering to different idea of the defintion.
If someone has a different idea about what a tag should mean, one will
either
* be ignorant and use the tag in a (completely) different way
the issue is typically not a
Hi,
Yesterday the Easter eggs were dropping from model airplanes. Of course I
want to map where this happened and were this club has their airfield.
Any suggestions?
Jo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
2015-04-07 14:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2015-04-07 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than
tags that are already in use.
+-0, typically mappers want to use the same tags that
If it has a formal airfield then the name would indicate what it is, such
as the 'Avondale Model Flying Club' but this tag needs a bit more
investigation and discussion as there are over 800 clubs affiliated to the
British Model Flying Association, some are indoors, some are outdoor
airfields for
I agree with leisure but where they're flown is a place
model_aerodrome differentiates it clearly from other types.
On 07/04/2015 16:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
Check out
Am 07.04.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F.:
As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on
natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required.
+1
From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform
highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there any
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
this looks like a bad tag, because aerodrome is a place and not a kind
of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into leisure (aside
pitch, track etc.)? For sport (if this can be considered a sport) I'd
Hi
I thought it was required for platform as some were being drawn as a
single line as OSM has no specific closed polygon entity, renderers
can't tell if it's an area to be filled or an extremely squiggly platform.
Ah, I forgot about aeroways. I'm surprised the conclusion was the width
Hi
As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on
natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required.
From memory the only two I know that can require it are
railway=platform highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are
there any others do other renderings have
Am 07.04.2015 um 18:39 schrieb Dave F.:
Hi
I thought it was required for platform as some were being drawn as a
single line as OSM has no specific closed polygon entity, renderers
can't tell if it's an area to be filled or an extremely squiggly platform.
No problem with platform as way
Am 07.04.2015 um 18:04 schrieb Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
Yes, Leisure= is needed for sport=.
it is typically done like this, but it is not needed, you could have also other
tags where a combination with the key sport might have sense, eg amenity=club
Not knowing what
Another one is man_made=pier.
Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
thing is, aerodrome or model aerodrome, is not a sport nor an activity, it
is a physical place. It doesn't fit into the set of other values that can
be found within sport.
You might want to change the wiki
highway=track too.
--
i.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
leisure=track, (With area=no because leisure is a key which suggests an area
yes default)
cheers
Martin
Am 07.04.2015 um 21:18 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
highway=track too.
--
i.
___
Tagging mailing list
How related to this discussion are dedicated model rocket ranges? Someone
just posted this note a couple of hours ago which got me thinking about
this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/344001
This seems like a similar activity. Or does it deserve its own thread? :)
Toby
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at
The wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Page_details says
/Proposal/
/A short description of what you want to map, including links to
relevant material with photos if possible./
/Rationale/
/Why the tag is needed, considering significance and potential uses
One more point...
Some of those opposing the proposal say they don't have time to follow
discussion on the tagging group.. they may also claim they don't have
time to read the dissuasion page .. so for that point of view the
reasons why things are done should be on the proposal page... Not
Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified, ion
exchanged I believe, water for drinking. Current practice seems to be to
tag them with amenity=drinking_water and leave it at that. What opinions do
you have on that?
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:46:56 +0700
Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
Tagging it as amenity=drinking_water is fine, but I would add also
fee=yes. Describing it as vending machine also would be a good idea.
Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified,
ion
Hedge requires area=yes when used on an area.
I use it for median and sidewalk hedges all the time.
Javbw
On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Hi
As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on
natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't
On 8/04/2015 1:46 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified,
ion exchanged I believe, water for drinking. Current practice seems to
be to tag them with amenity=drinking_water and leave it at that. What
opinions do you have on that?
Me?
I'd
37 matches
Mail list logo
