On 18 January 2011 16:13, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks?
>
> The tagging system as a whole will never be entirely consistent, or
> even operate on consistent principles. The best we can do is fix small
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, John Smith wrote:
> So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks?
The tagging system as a whole will never be entirely consistent, or
even operate on consistent principles. The best we can do is fix small
chunks at a time, and make those chunks as big as is pr
On 18 January 2011 04:46, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> * scuba_diving:filling=air;nitrox32;nitrox36;trimix;oxygen
These things don't get handled properly, you are better of using
simple binary, eg:
dive_centre:fill:air=yes/no
dive_centre:fill:nitrox32=yes/no
dive_centre:fill:nitrox36=yes/no
dive_c
On 18 January 2011 09:18, Steve Bennett wrote:
> waterway=flood_gate
> flood_gate=sluice_gate
>
> ...is more usable for non-techie nerds than something like:
> waterway=flow_control
> flow_control=sluice_gate
> usage=flood_gate
So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks?
-1
__
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On the other hand, what if one knows that there's a gate but not its
> purpose (for instance, when mapping drainage canals through swampy
> areas)?
Indeed. How to cater for both situations?
Steve
___
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> > The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong
> > there - that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate.
>
> From a technical perspective you may be right, but practically speaking,
> we should design tagging
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong there -
>> that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate.
>
> From a technical perspective you may be right, b
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong there -
> that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate.
>From a technical perspective you may be right, but practically
speaking, we should design tagging schemes wit
Hi,
Thanks Robert for your corrections and comments :)
personnaly i think that multiple value are harder to read, to compute
and to search it's the reason why i chose this...
now that you tell me this i'm bit confused not sure which one to choose...
what others are thinking?
Thanks for your fe
I have corrected some typo's last week
I was pleased you used namespaces. That good.
I want to make a suggestion to configure this a little different.
* scuba_diving:filling=air;nitrox32;nitrox36;trimix;oxygen
In that way to are prepared to future developments and also you don't have
to cre
> Canabis wrote:
> >* I didn't recieved notification of block of messages. I relied
> *>* on the phrase in the auto answer: "Either the message will
> *>* get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the
> *>* moderator's decision."
> *
> Unfortunately the amount of spam postings and
Canabis wrote:
> I didn't recieved notification of block of messages. I relied
> on the phrase in the auto answer: "Either the message will
> get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the
> moderator's decision."
Unfortunately the amount of spam postings and cross-postings fr
Hi all
Voting on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnelwas
been started on 11.01.2011.
I was sent messages to this mailling list 15.12.2010 about start RFC and
11.01.2011 about start voting. Messages had to go through after being
moderated because
13 matches
Mail list logo
