On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap wrote:
> So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
> made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
> mostly remedied. If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 5
> nodes of inform
Actually, I did not write the statement quoted below. I posted a reply to
Pierre-Alain Dorange, who had made the quoted statement. I explained to
Pierre-Alain that the bot was reportedly tagging any tree within 50 meters of
any other tree as a cluster. Incidentally, doing so is the opposite o
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap wrote:
>> But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
>> with a tag.
>
> I suggest you start marking buildings which are within 50 meters of
> each other with denotation=cluste
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap wrote:
> I did what was asked for. You can't mark landmarks automatically, but can
> add a hint to those that are likely unremarkable. Since it is just an
> additional tag, it is non-destructive, unlike re-inventing the tagging
> scheme. If you don't like it
Hi!
John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
>
Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:
Tagging ML:
Anthony-6: "Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
retagged?"
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: "can't you
On 9/10/10 4:27 PM, NopMap wrote:
A few corrections are in order...
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
I'd like to get some feedback from the community on possible inclusion of
"emergency shelter" in a "social facility" feature. I was discussing this
with the author of that proposal, kerosin, as I'd like to fold the Homeless
Shelter proposal into Social Facility.
After just a little research, the
A few corrections are in order...
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
>
> * Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
> and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
>
The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
prominent tree.
Serge Wro
2010/9/10 Tobias Knerr :
> For the record, I think that the denotation=cluster tag is a bad idea.
> It's vague, overlaps with the other values of denotation and doesn't add
> any information that wasn't there before.
as I already expressed here: I completely agree.
cheers,
Martin
_
John F. Eldredge wrote:
> He noted earlier in the thread that the bot is tagging any tree that is
> within 50 meters of another tree as denotation=cluster.
> The wiki says to use this notation for trees that are not single trees, but
> does not specify what distance distinguishes a single tree fr
He noted earlier in the thread that the bot is tagging any tree that is within
50 meters of another tree as denotation=cluster. The wiki says to use this
notation for trees that are not single trees, but does not specify what
distance distinguishes a single tree from a cluster of trees.
--
Serge Wroclawski
wrote:
> Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.
Thank you for this summary.
I agree to your position.
I notice today a bot (called Nop) has starting changing tag on single
tree by adding denotation=cluster
I don't know what it means and what his the bot algori
Serge
Thank you for such a very helpful and clear summary. I had tried to follow
from the start of the thread, but I couldn't see through it with the clarity
you have managed.
See some of my points below.
- Original Message -
From: "Serge Wroclawski"
To: "Tag discussion, strategy
On 10/09/2010 11:14, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Lulu-Ann wrote:
I would like to add loc_name-tags for this and name ways like "footway from village
A to B, west of footway crossing in MyWoodName"
Yes: Don't use loc_name (or any other key that contains "name") for
this. It's not a name. It's a descri
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
> important about the fact that the tree is standing alone that it needs to
> specifically be tagged as standing (or not standing) alone?
David,
Maybe you missed the begi
- Original Message -
From: "NopMap"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Hi!
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
so 2 trees are a "cluster"? IMHO that's also agains your own
intentions, because 2 trees can be as significant as one.
On 10/09/2010 04:54, NopMap wrote:
Hi!
Because you only can assume that something probably is a landmark.
But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.
But you're making assumptions that it's not a landmark.
IMO, 50 metres does not make a "cluster"
17 matches
Mail list logo
