Second, we should resist the temptation to make further suggestions
without a working example to go with it.
To be honest, that will help - I think I have been trying to follow the
discussions, but cannot follow what the proposals are applied to and how.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Rather than jumping to an answer The tags
shall be this! can we look at what our ideal goals would be?
Sure, in this order: Avoid ambiguity. Avoid subjectivity. Avoid
redundancy. Add detail. Try to maintain as much
On 10/30/10 8:32 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Richard Weaitrich...@weait.com wrote:
Rather than jumping to an answer The tags
shall be this! can we look at what our ideal goals would be?
Sure, in this order: Avoid ambiguity. Avoid subjectivity. Avoid
redundancy.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 10/30/10 8:32 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Richard Weaitrich...@weait.com wrote:
Rather than jumping to an answer The tags
shall be this! can we look at what our ideal goals would be?
It feels like we have been going around in circles on this for almost
two years. I wrote this in March 2009.
http://weait.com/content/badges-badges
Can we reset just a bit? Rather than jumping to an answer The tags
shall be this! can we look at what our ideal goals would be? So from
a
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 23:57 -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
It feels like we have been going around in circles on this for almost
two years. I wrote this in March 2009.
I concur. Discussions here go round and round, with no decision being
reached. They die then come up a few years later.
Sounds
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/25/2010 08:43 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
For Michigan route 12:
ref=12
network=state
state=michigan
For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont:
ref=16
network=county
state=vermont
county=bennington
I like it,
Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/25/2010 08:43 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
For Michigan route 12:
ref=12
network=state
state=michigan
For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont:
ref=16
network=county
Is there a reason to have the network tag with networkUS:state:county
instead of three separate tags for network:country network:state and
network:county in the case of county roads and two in the case of state,
etc. Having a network:country= tag will clear up any confusion in which
country the
Andrew S. J. Sawyer assaw...@gmail.com writes:
Is there a reason to have the network tag with networkUS:state:county
instead of three separate tags for network:country network:state and
network:county in the case of county roads and two in the case of state,
etc. Having a network:country= tag
I like Zeke's approach.
Andrew
On 10/25/2010, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what to call it, but values would be interstate, us_route,
state_route, county_route, etc. The specific information about
* Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com [2010-10-25 09:43 -0400]:
For those who do want to render different shields for each state and/or
county routes why not use sub tags as we commonly do for many other
osm features
Ian has suggested the established is_in= tag for this purpose, and Alex
Mauer has
I also agree with Phil. The operative tag is the network tag. Which
should refer to either country, state, county as found in the is_in
tags, without having to have a new tag. I think this is the way to
go.
Andrew
On 10/25/2010, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Zeke Farwell
Are we talking a single is_in tag, which will bring back the string
parsing problem, or multiple tags like is_in:state and is_in:county?
-- Lee
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Andrew S. J. Sawyer assaw...@gmail.comwrote:
I also agree with Phil. The operative tag is the network tag. Which
Multiple is_in=* tags. I think this is the consensus for the rest of the
world (at least I've seen it on a few other geometries around the world).
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Leroy E Leonard leeoncand...@gmail.comwrote:
Are we talking a single is_in tag, which will bring back the string
Multiple is_in=* tags.
How is this different from the normal argument that is_in is obsolete
because the object is contained within an admin boundary and the applicable
is_in can be derived during a geo-query?
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 25 October 2010 12:49, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
Multiple is_in=* tags.
How is this different from the normal argument that is_in is obsolete
because the object is contained within an admin boundary and the applicable
is_in can be derived during a geo-query?
+1
If a polygon
is_in doesn't work; part of New York State Route 17 is in Pennsylvania.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 10/25/10 2:58 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote:
On 25 October 2010 12:49, Mike N. nice...@att.net
mailto:nice...@att.net wrote:
Multiple is_in=* tags.
How is this different from the normal argument that is_in is
obsolete because the object is contained within an admin boundary
What about using network:country network:state etc for routes and
the example of the NY route running into PA would be solved. If you
wanted an is_in tag that route would have to be split into two
relations.
Andrew
On 10/25/2010, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
is_in doesn't work;
On 10/25/2010 08:43 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
For Michigan route 12:
ref=12
network=state
state=michigan
For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont:
ref=16
network=county
state=vermont
county=bennington
I like it, though it should be pointed out that this is more difficult
unless we're
By far the most discussed topics concerned the tagging of numbered
routes. The discussion split into a couple of different subtopics.
== How to designate routes ==
First was just how route information should be represented. Almost
everyone agreed on two things: that route shields should be
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
Since there's more agreement around the US:ST:County approach, are there
objections to just documenting that in the wiki?
I disagree that there is agreement about this approach. As I've mentioned a
couple times, we need to
23 matches
Mail list logo
