2017-12-03 4:05 GMT+01:00 Daniel Koć :
>
> 1. As I currently understand it, nature reserve is _always_ a type of
> protected area, to begin with.
>
> We were talking on osm-carto ticket with some people about private
> reserves and even when someone told me "it's not about protection!" this
> term
W dniu 11.12.2017 o 14:43, Greg Troxel pisze:
The property that is denoted by leisure=nature_reserve is mostly
separate from the protected area information. It means that humans are
able to hike in a land wich is in a natural state.
In the meantime I've made a reality check with Poland lately
Daniel Koć writes:
> W dniu 07.12.2017 o 17:04, Greg Troxel pisze:
>> I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve. The protected_area
>> scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and
>> leisure=nature_reserve has proved itself to be useful.
>
> This way or another it
W dniu 07.12.2017 o 17:04, Greg Troxel pisze:
I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve. The protected_area
scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and
leisure=nature_reserve has proved itself to be useful.
This way or another it seems to me that leisure= key is
Christoph Hormann writes:
> On Thursday 30 November 2017, Daniel Koc4 wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on
>> osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a
>> popular kind of objects.
>
>> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) a
I do agree with Christoph here, tag depreciation should be discussed outside of
the scope of osm-carto.
Daniel, this all thread looks like you want to promote a tagging scheme for the
primary reason you can't make it look nice on the slippy map. That's really not
helping tagging discussions!
Y
W dniu 03.12.2017 o 11:06, Christoph Hormann pisze:
As said before: *do not mix rendering and tagging discussions*.
I don't fully understand what you're suggesting (it's a long, complex
sentence), but I feel you're accusing me of something bad. Please note
that the first point about general
On Sunday 03 December 2017, Daniel Koc4� wrote:
>
> TL;DR summary: I think that for now we should render all the existing
> tags with osm-carto, but make some of them appear earlier to
> encourage smooth migration to a more precise scheme.
You are clearly out of line here - the suggestion that the
Thanks for the comments! They help me to get the bigger picture, which
is not visible from just the tag names and definitions.
TL;DR summary: I think that for now we should render all the existing
tags with osm-carto, but make some of them appear earlier to encourage
smooth migration to a more
On 30/11/17 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote:
Hi,
I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on
osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a
popular kind of objects. There is a fresh discussion about it from
this comment on:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstre
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote:
>>>
1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundar
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new
>>> scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks li
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
>> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new
>> scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks like the old scheme
>> is used as a hack just to make it visible
sent from a phone
On 30. Nov 2017, at 23:09, Daniel Koć wrote:
>> There are 62k uses of boundary=protected_area and 77k of
>> leisure=nature_reserve and 31k of the combination - which does not
>> really support your idea that the latter is used just as a hack.
>
> How would you detect such a
On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote:
1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new
scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks like the old
scheme is used as a hack just to make it visible on default map.
Just to chuck one example in - I've tagged lots of
W dniu 30.11.2017 o 17:38, Christoph Hormann pisze:
There are 62k uses of boundary=protected_area and 77k of
leisure=nature_reserve and 31k of the combination - which does not
really support your idea that the latter is used just as a hack.
How would you detect such a hack then?
In my opinion
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on osm-carto
> and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a popular kind of
> objects. There is a fresh discussion about it from this comment on:
>
> https://github.com
On Thursday 30 November 2017, Daniel Koc4� wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on
> osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a
> popular kind of objects.
I have no definitive opinion on the tagging question but i consider your
approach here h
Hi,
I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on osm-carto
and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a popular kind of
objects. There is a fresh discussion about it from this comment on:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/603#issuecomment-347
19 matches
Mail list logo