[Tagging] IndoorOSM 2.0
This is really just a heads up on the ongoing discussion in the indoor forum http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=67 and the competing proposals https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IndoorOSM_2.0 and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/F3DB . I have to admit even though the IndoorOSM 2.0 was mainly intended as a straw man to re-start the discussion, I kind of like the now minimalistic approach it has, its biggest weakness is however that there are currently no applications that actually consume the data in the format (which is mainly due to lack of time on my behalf). Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:10:26PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > Volker, > > There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional > "bridge:..." keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page > somewhat to make it more clear that these additional options exist for > adding detail about bridges. I'm sorry I didn't follow up on this more > promptly when the proposal closed, but I think the wiki is in pretty good > shape now. If there's something that needs more detail, let me know. thanks, that looks much better now. Would it be fine to add the "simple_suspension" type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge) to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure ? It appears that most of the illegal values were intended to map this type of structures. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > thanks, that looks much better now. > > Would it be fine to add the "simple_suspension" type >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge) > to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure ? It appears > that most of the illegal values were intended to map this type of > structures. Do you think "simple_suspension" or "hanging" is better as a type? If not, I don't feel strongly about this, but it's a single word and not readily confused with "conventional" suspension bridges. Yours, -- Chris Hoess ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area
Hi http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149 I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation. (checking the history previously they were both highway=pedestrian. I thought that tag should be used linearly only, as per the wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Footway & areas should be highway=pedestrian. You'll notice though that mapnik renders them the same way. Is that part of the recent carto upgrade? To me, having two different tags (footway, pedestrian) to represent the same type of object is confusing, as is using the same tag (footway) to represent two different types of object. Any idea why these values have been changed? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area
On 9 August 2014 17:06, Dave F. wrote: > You'll notice though that mapnik > renders them the same way. Is that part of the recent carto upgrade? No, the rendering hasn't been changed in this respect. See http://bl.ocks.org/tyrasd/raw/6164696/#18.00/51.49424/-0.12091. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:21:46AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > thanks, that looks much better now. > > > > Would it be fine to add the "simple_suspension" type > >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge) > > to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure ? It appears > > that most of the illegal values were intended to map this type of > > structures. > > > Do you think "simple_suspension" or "hanging" is better as a type? If not, > I don't feel strongly about this, but it's a single word and not readily > confused with "conventional" suspension bridges. not sure about this, more opinions? Yet another popular name is "rope bridge". Found one more culprit for the popularity of bridge=swing - a wiki page tag:bridge:swing exists. It is only a redirect seeing it from taginfo suggests it is a legal combination. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bridge%3Dswing&redirect=no I would suggest to speedily delete this redirect? Meanwhile I am trying to clean up the localised pages. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
