Re: [Tagging] Decorative pool?
2010/11/1 Nathan Edgars II : > What's the correct tag for a small decorative pool like this? > http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.540045,-81.378424&spn=0.000987,0.002575&t=k&z=20&layer=c&cbll=28.540331,-81.378715&panoid=i0K7FBmQ_sgIfvQ9U6mOJA&cbp=12,146.51,,0,2.8 > I used natural=water but that seems totally wrong. (I know about > amenity=fountain, but (a) that would be a node inside the pool and (b) > these don't always have fountains.) AFAIK those 2 tags are those generally used for objects like this. amenity=fountain is not just for nodes but for areas as well. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to tag landscaping
Bring me a shrubbery! While doing some small-scale mapping, I came across an area of landscaping roughly outlined in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Landscaping.png Landscaping typically has small trees, shrubs, flowers, and other decorative plants. Being artificial, the natural=scrub and natural=heath tags are not suitable. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag landscaping
2010/11/1 Paul Norman : > Bring me a shrubbery! > > While doing some small-scale mapping, I came across an area of landscaping > roughly outlined in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Landscaping.png > > Landscaping typically has small trees, shrubs, flowers, and other decorative > plants. Being artificial, the natural=scrub and natural=heath tags are not > suitable. maybe you could invent a new subclass of garden? The scale of the intervention in your foto suggests that this is not a "landscape" (although landscaping might be the word to describe the process). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Super-relations or not
Peter Budny wrote: > If you want this to be the standard way of tagging things, then we > NEED to get the tools up to spec. I also noticed that Potlatch > doesn't change the role from forward to backward when you > reverse a way. (JOSM does the right thing, though.) Patches welcome. I'm not saying that as the standard snide answer to everything - I really mean it. As people have been developing more and more intricate uses of relations, the barrier to entry for new mappers gets higher, so yes, someone needs to upgrade the tools to cope. And I'm not happy with being the sole point of responsibility every time someone devises a new rule for use of relations. In particular P1's relations code needs: - content-sensitive behaviour (like reversing forward/backward roles, and only carrying through turn restrictions to the relevant ways in case of split) - relation ordering support - super-relation support Yell if you need any help getting to grips with the P1 source. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Super-relations-or-not-was-Relation-member-roles-from-Osmosis-import-tp5682868p5693945.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Super-relations or not
On 1 November 2010 14:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > - super-relation support > To anyone wanting to look at a nasty super relation, I would suggest looking at the French administrative boundary which is a relation of relations. Emilie Laffray ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Super-relations or not
Marcus Wolschon writes: > I'm using routes in way-simplification to generate simplified maps for > realtime rendering of larger areas when zooming out. > > It's quite a lot of work with LOTS of cases to try to sort > route-relations that are randomly sorted with parts > being other relations instead of ways, parts being contained twice, > parts missing in the relation but having a > ref= -tag or a ref_nat= -tag or ... , parts having a ref= -tag with > the wrong road-number that should NOT be > made a part of this simplified way,... In fairness, much of that sounds like errors. A route relation ought to contain exactly the things that are part of it, no more no less. The ref=* tag on ways is irrelevant for a route relation. What would you prefer to see the structure of the relation be, given your druthers? Should both directions of a road be in one relation, tagged with roles? Should a oneway=no way have a role? Should it be in the relation twice with different roles? Should there be separate relations for each direction with a super-relation to hold them both? If super-relations are used, does it still make sense to use forward/backward tags as appropriate? As far as I'm concerned, the difference in what's required to tag things is minimal between these concerns. Therefore, wouldn't it make the most sense to choose whichever is programmatically the easiest and most flexible to deal with? -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Super-relations or not
Richard Fairhurst writes: > Peter Budny wrote: >> If you want this to be the standard way of tagging things, then we >> NEED to get the tools up to spec. I also noticed that Potlatch >> doesn't change the role from forward to backward when you >> reverse a way. (JOSM does the right thing, though.) > > Patches welcome. I'd love to try my hand at it... but it will have to wait until this school semester is over and I have free time again. In the meanwhile, e-mail debates about what ought to be the correct way of doing things, whether or not it's supported currently, is all I can manage. But sure...you'll probably hear from me in a couple months when I get buried in the code :-) -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Super-relations or not
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Peter Budny wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, the difference in what's required to tag things > is minimal between these concerns. Therefore, wouldn't it make the most > sense to choose whichever is programmatically the easiest and most > flexible to deal with? It depends on what the you want to use route relations for. It's quite possible that different uses would demand different ways of structuring the route relation(s). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - right left
Voting page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/right_left E. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
