Hello,
Just for your information, there is also this "level:ref" tag which was
used in various context to solve this problem :
- level tag is still used as defined in Simple Indoor Tagging
- level:ref has a value which is linked to operator naming of levels
That way, casual mappers/consumers
In the proposal there is a statement:
" it is impossible to check whatever power line is insulated during survey
without closely approaching power line"
I thought, that the distinction is very easy; insulated cables don't need
insulated suspension. Insulated suspension is very easy to see. Or am I
Am So., 20. Jan. 2019 um 23:41 Uhr schrieb Tobias Knerr :
> On 20.01.19 19:37, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > - a shop on level M with "level=M"
> >
> > - the mall building with "levels=P2,P1,G,M,1-12,14-99" (the order of the
> > levels). If levels is missing, a numerical order is assumed
>
> So
Yes it makes sense to keep this distinction : level tag can just be the
"logical order" of levels going from -xx to xx with an arbitrary 0 for each
building, so tools know the order (which one is above the other). Simple
Indoor Tagging already suggest the level:ref for the "local" naming scheme.
Am So., 20. Jan. 2019 um 18:07 Uhr schrieb Roland Olbricht <
roland.olbri...@gmx.de>:
> we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged
> structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making
> "street level" a not-at-all defined concept.
+1, also from my
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:45 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Around and around we go. This list cannot agree on approving
> landuse=forestry because it
> doesn't get rendered. The carto people refuse to render landuse=forestry
> because nobody
> uses it. Sometimes the semi-anarchic nature of OSM
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 04:20, Andy Townsend wrote:
One suggestion that I've made here before is explicitly to use
> "landuse=forestry" for areas that may or may not have trees on them, if
> the areas with trees within have been mapped separately
>
You're not the only one to have made that
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood...
>
> what happens to the remaining landuse=forest?
> Will that finally be recognised as the same as natural=wood and be
> migrated to natural=wood???
>
Ideally, if
On 22/01/19 04:29, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:45 AM Paul Allen wrote:
What if we suggest in the wiki that where trees are used for actual forestry
people are
encouraged to dual-tag with landuse=forestry + natural=wood on the basis that
with
enough usage the carto group
On 20/01/2019 23:39, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> The main challenge I see with your proposal, though, is that the
> levels=* tag on the building would be utterly required to make any sense
> of the order of floors. Without it, applications would have no idea
> whether "M" is above or below "P2", for
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:45 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> What if we suggest in the wiki that where trees are used for actual forestry
> people are
> encouraged to dual-tag with landuse=forestry + natural=wood on the basis that
> with
> enough usage the carto group will render landuse=forestry AND
On 21/01/2019 09:19, PanierAvide wrote:
> Just for your information, there is also this "level:ref" tag which was
> used in various context to solve this problem
I know of "level:ref". However, on the SIT wiki page, "level:ref" is
documented as a tag for the level-outline tagged with
On 21.01.19 22:38, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> I do consider both to be SIT compliant.
I'm not sure if it's clear from the written text of SIT, but neither
fractional levels nor indoor features outside of a building outline were
part of SIT's design. (And yes, these are obvious omissions that will
When I look at the area, it turns out that Pointe des Espagnols is the
extreme tip of the Roscanvel Peninsula, which itself comes off the Crozon
Peninsula eg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Iroise_sea_map-en.svg
If we add say Pointe des Capucins & Point de Cornouaille, it
On Monday 21 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I've improved the differentiation from natural=cape and abandoned the
> minimal area requirement of 1 km². Please tell me if it makes sense
> now.
That looks better though this might still be read as there being
necessarily a 1:1 relationship between
Hi Tobias,
thank you for keeping the discussion. One extra thing I have just
learned is that non-numerical level refs are not-so-uncommon in the US,
hence should be covered by a tool to be helpful there.
> I do not want to sound so combative or negative here - to reason
> for why a new tag
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 23:00, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> > A piece of land that projects into a body of water.
>
> Sounds like a peninsula to me.
Nearly the same definition is used for natural=cape: 'A piece of
elevated land sticking out into the sea or large lake.' This is the
reason why i
As tordanik has already pointed out the main issue with the proposals is
that there is no inherent ordering that can be deduced from level values
on objects if they are not (integer) numbers, so any such scheme
requires far more insight, effort and available context from
joe-casual-mapper and
18 matches
Mail list logo
