On 4/9/19 9:16 am, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems
apposite and is documented (if underused).
+1. Not all on hills, small .. or historic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marree_Man
Adding a natural=bare_rock tag to
On 4/9/19 7:58 am, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S wrote:
Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
relation, I would tag it as that.
Done; though "historic" seems inapt.
The "type=*" tag
The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems
apposite and is documented (if underused).
Adding a natural=bare_rock tag to reflect the exposed bedrock underneath
(yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable, and would have the definite
bonus of getting the shape to
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:01, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
> drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant
I've started a discussion, specifically about hill figures, on the tagging list:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S wrote:
> Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
> > Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
> > relation, I would tag it as that.
Done; though "historic" seems inapt.
> The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
Ah, good spot. The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
type=multipolygon. The latter might in fact be a reasonable thing to
do here?
Best
Dan
Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
>
> Tagging it as type=memorial and
Tagging it as type=memorial and memorial=yes doesn't seem very useful to me.
Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
relation, I would tag it as that. It would be similar to this one nearby
[1], would still get rendered and be recognised by data consumers. Or
On 03/09/2019 09:54, Colin Smale wrote:
For HGVs there is another issue in play. Specialised devices using
specialised maps are required, to give routing appropriate to the
vehicle, its mass, length, height, width etc. These devices can be a lot
more expensive, and harder to find, than
2 Sep 2019, 14:42 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:
> Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
> their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
> re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:
>
> * Overpass Turbo query to find
2 Sep 2019, 15:30 by stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk:
> I have found, variously (aside from those without a shop tag at all)
> “houseware”, “household”, “doityourself”, “department_store”.
>
> I would suggest that “houseware” or “household” (is this a recognised tag?)
> comes closest, or
Seems reasonable. Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9425037
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:
>
>
On 03/09/2019 12:31, Edward Bainton wrote:
I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes
of countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use,
showing the extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes
with flags indicating Crown copyright
Thanks Silent Spike. Keep up the good work.
Of course, the very process of people tagging a shop type with the value
that they think is correct, unprompted by the NSI, is/was the process of
gaining consensus. I fear slightly that in our desire to use the 'right'
value we lose that inputNot
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:34, Edward Bainton wrote:
> I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of
> countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the
> extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags
> indicating
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jez Nicholson
wrote:
> I don't know (yet) how iD generates its list of shop types. This may be
> hard-coded and/or pre-generated from the NSI.
>
I can shed some light on this. The "type" field (drop down list) on the
generic "shop" preset is generated from
Hi all
I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of
countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the
extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags
indicating Crown copyright thus:
*Reproduced by permission of
I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162
but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
connected ways that comprise it.
It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.
Any suggestions for
On 2019-09-02 16:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
> One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often isn't
> updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of legally
> binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data updates are
> performed within a
Community input to the plan is important. Any points you would like to
discuss can be added to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 07:02 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/19 8:22 am, David Woolley wrote:
>
On 3/9/19 8:22 am, David Woolley wrote:
On 02/09/2019 23:13, Warin wrote:
On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it
20 matches
Mail list logo
