On Jan 24, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Danny McDonald wrote:
> A place does not need to incorporated to be a place=town, city, village.
> That is not how it works anywhere in OSM - there are many unincorporated
> places with these tags, worldwide. The tagging in Ottawa is a good guide,
> with e.g.
A place does not need to incorporated to be a place=town, city, village.
That is not how it works anywhere in OSM - there are many unincorporated
places with these tags, worldwide. The tagging in Ottawa is a good guide,
with e.g. Richmond a village, but e.g. Centretown and Stittsville
I know in Quebec the place=village tag has been adopted to tag the
municipalities other than town, cities and suburb, regardless of population. I
think, but don’t know for sure, the main reason for this is actually the
rendering engine(s). The place=village tag get a nice rendering that allow
On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:50 AM, Danny McDonald wrote:
> My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and
> place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are
> separate municipalities.
Correct, in that these tags can be placed upon a node, way or
Repeating this, since it seemed to get bumped by all the building import
talk. Now with a catchier subject line.
DannyMcD
My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and
place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are
separate municipalities.
John,
I mentioned several times in the various email threads that I planned to
make substantial changes to the wiki. If you think something I added is
a value judgment, I encourage you to point it out, on the wiki itself
ideally. I think I've mostly been restructuring the page (without
Hi all,
I just want to let everyone know that I moved the OSM wiki page for the
Canadian building import, much discussed of late on this list. My hope
is that this name is easier to search and more clearly conveys what we
are trying to do.
All history for the page is preserved and a
On Jan 24, 2019, at 9:29 AM, john whelan wrote:
> You seem to have made rather large changes without consultation including
> changing the title of the project. You have also added some value judgments.
> A number of people were involved in the original and it might have been nice
> to
You seem to have made rather large changes without consultation including
changing the title of the project. You have also added some value
judgments. A number of people were involved in the original and it might
have been nice to consult with them before making such drastic changes.
The word
We're over the 40 k limit again so I trimmed it.
I get the impression that just adding the building outline or even an
approximation of a building outline adds value to the map.
My own house has a cantilever on the back so the upper story extends beyond
the basement outline. It also has a porch
Hi all,
Just a heads up that I've moved the page documenting the plan to import
buildings across Canada, much discussed on this list of late. The idea
is that the new title is more concise, easily searchable, and clearly
explains what we're trying to do. All page history has been preserved
That is incorrect, some building parts could be bigger if they are
surrounding the building as an overhang etc. You can't assume building will
be bigger
On Thu., Jan. 24, 2019, 11:51 a.m. Nate Wessel Is it sufficient to tag fragments as building:part without indicating
> which part or how many
>>It looks like perhaps we might just have to find the largest part for the
footprint (building=yes) and any intersecting smaller buildings
(building:part=yes).
Yes, that's what I usually do. I also sometimes delete non-important
building parts that don't add anything valuable to the map but only
Data is currently stored in OSM by mappers this way, regardless of the
source. I don't think a height or which part is needed to use the building
part tags. It provides the basis for later additions should a mapper be so
inclined to add it.
---
Kevin Farrugia
On Thu., Jan. 24, 2019, 11:51
Is it sufficient to tag fragments as building:part without indicating
which part or how many stories? If the data is properly structured, this
seems like something that could be handled in preprocessing by checking
for overlapping polygons. It looks like perhaps we might just have to
find the
>they can be brought in from another source with better documentation /
attribute tagging. (i.e. City of Toronto?)
I understand The City of Toronto Open Data License has been submitted to
the OSM Legal Working Group some time ago. The Federal Government 2.0
license and the City of Ottawa
OSM wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
It's not in the import wiki though since whoever wrote it didn't know about
it at the time.
Here's what I mean by mapping 3D features in our case. Say there is a
residential tower on a podium. In the StatsCan data usually you would
Hi Yaro,
I just had a chance to look at the documentation on the source data and
I wasn't able to find anything about 3D features or parts of buildings
being mapped separately. Are you guessing here, or is there
documentation on this? If so can you point us to it?
In any case, the big
My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and
place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are
separate municipalities. Place=suburb is for large parts of urban
settlements (such as North York in Toronto, or Kanata in Ottawa). Whether
to classify
19 matches
Mail list logo
