2013/6/14 Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com
Since I sent out the query to this list I've been mulling over setting
adds:street=CampgroundName and addr:housenumber=SiteNumber on each of
those.
addr:street shouldn't be used if there is not a street with the name.
Better use addr:place or
2013/6/14 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
The OSM node could even link to a wiki page where the neighborhood can be
described in all its richness and complexity.
you could do this with wikipedia links. My usecase would be to enter an
address in a search field and get information about the
The Bing images for the area appear to be from 2007
. (I've found a house mid-construction in the Bing images that was finished
in 2007).
So use caution before changing what someone else has entered based solely
on what you see in Bing. It is unlikely many structures disappeared between
2007 and
Looks like the proposed way of marking campsites within a campground is
described at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_lots
which involves setting nodes at the individual sites tagged with camp_site=lot
and lot:number=*
I see only 61 instances
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
(I switched to talk-us for this reply because it doesn't touch on import
issues)
I don't think it's so much a bug in the stylesheet as much as a bug in the
world we're trying to map. Many cities simply have excessive
I agree this should ideally be addressed at the data level. If all parking
nodes had some capacity / access information, the renderer could prioritize
for larger public parking when zooming out, for example. And entering every
strip of street parking spots as parking in OSM does not make sense to
To amplify what Serge said about Washington, no distinction was made for
the behind-the-house, 1-2 vehicle private space versus large public lots.
So if you were to look at the WashDC map, you'd be misled into thinking
there is parking everywhere! I rather like the suggestion of addressing it
2013/6/14 Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com
To amplify what Serge said about Washington, no distinction was made for
the behind-the-house, 1-2 vehicle private space versus large public lots.
So if you were to look at the WashDC map, you'd be misled into thinking
there is parking everywhere!
For areas inside what you can assume is private property, landuse=forest is
what I typically use. 'Managed Forest'? Maybe needs to be a little more.
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:27 AM
To: 'OSM US Talk'
Cc: 'hot'
Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black
Makes sense to me. Private parking and parking accessible to the public should
certainly be tagged and rendered differently. I would not be surprised if some
people, trying to use an OSM map to find a place to park, and instead being
directed again and again to parking that turned out to be
Hi all,
At our monthly geoNYC meetup, we have a section where we announce upcoming
events im the geo space. If there are any conferences, hangouts,
trainings, milestones, etc that you would like us to share with this
audience, please let me know in the next couple of days.
Thanks!
Alyssa.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag
natural=wood? There’s plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren’t
mapped, but I’m not sure how to handle them.
I was hoping long time users and
Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I
have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local
expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags.
Thanks!
From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June
Here's a wiki page for coordination. Please feel free to edit
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Black_Forest_Fire_2013
Eugghh! The landuse data around here is a mess. Government data import I
presume On the plus side. There's plenty to get stuck in and work on. I
recommend JOSM for
Thank you Harry, no - sorry - the landuse was mainly me; afterward I can
explain why it's beneficial to mash landuse on the map for response
purposes. Yes, it will need cleaned up and Murry and others are making good
progress.
=Russ
From: Harry Wood [mailto:m...@harrywood.co.uk]
Sent:
To clarify, my question was not around what tags to use for the areas with
trees, it was on how to handle the fact that the forest in many cases is
presumably burnt out.
If it weren't for the fire I'd be tracing a lot of natural=wood in the
region.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Taylor
Sorry, again my take is to go ahead and trace - a little background, I would
like to be able to suggest to fire/all emergency services that OSM is/can be
the best 'situational awareness' tool/map. So although we will be creating
more work to 'fix' - when I started it was a blank white area with
Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable
information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map
proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the
core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on
paper.
Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman darr...@garnix.org wrote:
Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They
are imaginary, let's delete them and move on.
They have no more place in OSM
Well then, we can use them to hide the parking lot symbols in DC.
d.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 15:11, alyssa wright alyssapwri...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman darr...@garnix.org wrote:
Please for
I've been doing some California landuse and have come across a lot of
landuse=residential imported from FMMP which is clearly wrong. The
landuse=residential covers entire cities, including commercial, industrial,
retail, parks, schools, golf courses, airports, and pretty much anything
within city
On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer.
earlier
In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's
the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag
This would be an acceptable compromise.
On Jun 14, 2013 6:00 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer.
earlier
In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I
believe
I tag landuse=forest on public and private timber production
polygons. This includes national forests, yes. It also includes at
least one state demonstration forest I am aware of near me.
I tag landuse=wood on virgin forest as well as second-growth
forests or visually woody land. I do so
24 matches
Mail list logo
