> I cant follow the logic of "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
>that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
>signed.
IMHO The ref key is for the primary key (so in these cases against the highway).
It keeps it simple for mappers and is verifiably the ground
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 21:46:53 GMT Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 10/01/2017 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> > ref=legible_london
>
> I don't understand the rationale for this as a 'ref'. Refs are normally
> unique identifiers for a particular object (unique within a particular
> domain, that
On 10/01/2017 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:
ref=legible_london
I don't understand the rationale for this as a 'ref'. Refs are normally
unique identifiers for a particular object (unique within a particular
domain, that is). Thus each sign would have a different ref, if there
were
With 31 993 occurrences prow_ref appears to be the agreed way to go. To
check is FootpathX an official authority reference format?
DaveF
On 10/01/2017 16:02, Paul Berry wrote:
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to
*prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've
On 10 January 2017 at 15:55, SK53 wrote:
> I was going to say that usually we have the atco code in ref for bus stops
> with the more visible stop C in local ref, and thus bus stops aren't the
> perfect example. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to wait at bus stop
> 3390V1
2017-01-10 16:37 GMT+00:00 Andy Mabbett :
> On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:
>
>> ref=legible_london
Yeah, I agree this isn't the way "ref=" is normally used
> I'd expect to see something like:
>
>
On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> ref=legible_london
I'd expect to see something like:
operator=legible_london
or, say:
operator=GLA
scheme=legible_london
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Andy
That's a very good point. I suspect that I mis-remembered the use of
crossing_ref=* (used with highway=crossing + crossing=*) as just "ref".
brand=legible_london seems a much better fit, particularly as it makes it seem
less of an assertion about the actual legibility of the map (as
On 10 January 2017 at 16:02, Paul Berry wrote:
> So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on
> this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797
I'd definitely recommend using prow_ref=* to
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to
*prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797
Regards,
*Paul*
On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F wrote:
> This thread:
>
On 10 January 2017 at 15:10, Andy Allan wrote:
>
> Think of it like bus stops (ref=C) or road numbers (ref=A204). Would
> it make sense if I was to render a map with an icon for the
> information point, with the reference shown underneath?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
I was
On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> ref=legible_london
I would only use the ref= tag if there is a reference code for each
installation, e.g. if the totem has a displayed reference like "A01"
designed for users to see. From the pictures I don't
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 09/01/2017 14:38, Adrian McEwen wrote:
> > On 09/01/17 12:50, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > > More seriously, edits are public, and feeds such as Pascal Neis's,
> > > Whodidit and OsmCha allow monitoring of changes in an area, so if you see
> > >
On 09/01/2017 14:38, Adrian McEwen wrote:
On 09/01/17 12:50, Andy Townsend wrote:
More seriously, edits are public, and feeds such as Pascal Neis's,
Whodidit and OsmCha allow monitoring of changes in an area, so if you
see something that "looks wrong" please do investigate and contact
the
The wiki lists map_type and map_size as "useful combinations" for the tag
combination tourism=information + information=map (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dmap ).
Using map_type=street probably makes sense as it is already in use and seems a
reasonable match for the
On 9 January 2017 at 22:21, Wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign
wrote:
> Just to introduce myself, I'm Steve Young from Wolverhampton ( First
> message, very very recently joined this mailing list )
Welcome!
> I've not made an edit yet, though hoping to make the
This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html
Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html
As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to
be specific as possible.
Not quite sure what you had in mind by the tags map_type and map_size,
but maybe need a tag something along the likes of "sign_type" withn
values of "bollard | monolith | finger_post | totem" ( see
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/legible-london-product-range.pdf)
David
-- Original Message
On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:
> FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt
> there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be
> specific.
Where was that discussed/agreed?
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
//colin
I'm surprised contributors are spending their time with the ephemeral
'crop' tag in the UK. As pointed out by Andy we have crop rotation
systems. Previously to ensure the land wasn't stripped of nutrients, but
now primarily based on what is the highest EU CAP subsidy.
DaveF
On 10/01/2017
I can see a whole new wiki excursion into the underground world of root crops
;-)
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Craig Wallace [mailto:craig...@fastmail.fm]
Sent: 10 January 2017 01:52
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet
On 2017-01-10 01:20,
On 10/01/2017 00:36, Robert Norris wrote:
If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the
reference is taken from the Council ROW information documents that are compatible with
OSM.
'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the
22 matches
Mail list logo