On 29/05/2018 15:48, Dan S wrote:
On 29/05/18 14:53, Tony Shield wrote:
At the end of this week (2nd June) I intend to change the platforms I know
to remove covered=yes, if you disagree please challenge.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue seems to be that the
carto change works on the assumption that covered=yes implies the
feature isn't visible (e.g. because partly underground), whereas
others may be are working on the assumption that covered=yes means you
won't get rained on (e.g. there is some kind of roof)?
The wiki seems pretty clear actually - it only really talks about the
first of the two meanings.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered
Yes, that's my understanding, too.
I think that 'covered' may possibly be a poor choice of word here,
because it has multiple meanings in normal English usage and it isn't
intuitively obvious which is the correct meaning in terms of OSM. If I
was starting from scratch, I think I'd be inclined to seek a better term
for "something that is underneath something else". But, we are where we
are, and the wiki is clear enough on the current usage. So we may as
well stick with it.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
