On 9/8/17 9:34 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
>>> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
>>> to the na
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea whether the elevations, be they in feet or metres,
> are all respecting the wiki definition of being the height above MSL
> according to EGM96 (not sure what that would mean in landlocked areas) and
> NOT WGS84 or (stri
Also, I doubt anyone in ordinary life refers to a mountain as "Mount
So-and-So 2000 meters", rather than simply "Mount So-and-So".
On September 8, 2017 8:36:52 AM Richard Welty wrote:
On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
User Raymo853
On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
>> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
>> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
>> to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point"
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
> to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point
> 11,463 ft."[2] Wh
Le 08. 09. 17 à 11:14, Janko Mihelić a écrit :
> 20155.9894568543 ft
your unreasonable example has nothing to do with elevation.
in any tag, nothing prevents a tool from being rational
in the values it saves or displays. I do not know what is
the best possible accuracy but an altitude measurement
Elevation doesn't go in "name" tag, that's quite obvious. But I think
elevations in feet shouldn't be discouraged. Maybe sometimes you have
iconic elevations of mountains in feet everybody knows and learns in
school, and they want to see that number exactly on a map, and not some
fraction after con
On 08/09/2017 09:54, Colin Smale wrote:
Does anyone have any idea whether the elevations, be they in feet or
metres, are all respecting the wiki definition of being the height
above MSL according to EGM96 (not sure what that would mean in
landlocked areas) and NOT WGS84 or (strictly speaking)
The wiki page for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele says it
has to be in meters, not in feets.
--
Lukas Sommer
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
r 2017 02:59:39
> TO: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> SUBJECT: Re: [Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names
>
> On 08-Sep-17 09:10 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
>> Adding numeric values to the name of a peak is not okay. As for using feet
>> in the "ele" tag i
ct: Re: [Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names
On 08-Sep-17 09:10 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Adding numeric values to the name of a peak is not okay. As for using feet in
the "ele" tag instead of meters, JOSM discourages this practice and I think we
should too. It's lo
Le 07. 09. 17 à 23:31, Mike Thompson a écrit :
> he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point 11,463 ft.
> it does say "Name is the name only"[3].
as the wiki says: the name is only the name.
"Crown Point 11,463 ft" is not a name.
Elevation goes in the "ele" tag.
in meters if it's only a number.
add f
On 08-Sep-17 09:10 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Adding numeric values to the name of a peak is not okay. As for using
feet in the "ele" tag instead of meters, JOSM discourages this
practice and I think we should too. It's long past the time when
Americans and other countries still using archaic an
Adding numeric values to the name of a peak is not okay. As for using feet
in the "ele" tag instead of meters, JOSM discourages this practice and I
think we should too. It's long past the time when Americans and other
countries still using archaic and cumbersome measurement systems based on
the len
ele can of course be in feett or lightyears for that matter, but it's a lot
easier to work with if they are all in the same unit.
2017-09-08 0:22 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 08-Sep-17 07:39 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2017 04:31 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> User R
On 08-Sep-17 07:39 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 09/07/2017 04:31 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in
feet) to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown
P
On 09/07/2017 04:31 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in
> feet) to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown
> Point 11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki doesn
Sounds like tagging for the renderer to me.
There is a elevation tag already defined and in wide spread use. And it is
pretty easy for a renderer to show that in addition to the name. And even
convert it from meters to feet when doing the rendering. I do this when
rendering my personal use Topo
18 matches
Mail list logo