Hi Eckhart,
On 15/06/2012 01:08, Eckhart Wörner wrote:
Hi Colin,
Am Freitag, 15. Juni 2012, 00:24:18 schrieb Colin Smale:
"If I were king" I would be looking for a system that:
* makes common cases easy
Extended conditions: ☑
* makes complex cases possible
Extended conditions: ☑
* makes
I've only heard tailings used to refer to the waste from mining.
Regarding wastewater treatment, I'm assuming other reservoir_types
discussed were things like sedimentation and aeration?
Brad
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Today we had a discussion on talk-de how
Hi Colin,
Am Freitag, 15. Juni 2012, 00:24:18 schrieb Colin Smale:
> "If I were king" I would be looking for a system that:
> * makes common cases easy
Extended conditions: ☑
> * makes complex cases possible
Extended conditions: ☑
> * makes each rule as standalone as possible (one sign -> one
Hi martinq,
Am Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2012, 22:19:06 schrieb martinq:
> and many other variants. It is almost impossible to tag it wrong.
I'm sorry, but every time I've heard a statement similar to "you cannot get it
wrong" it just boiled down to "the computer cannot tell you that it's wrong".
Th
Martin, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it had
better be a duck... What I mean with this, is if the grammar is so
English-like such that people are tempted to use constructions which are
not (or not quite) supported by the grammar, or if the way it works is
contrary to how
Hi,
sadly this discussion was restarted before I could establish a reference
implementation for a less technical way of tagging conditional values
(for those who are interested: it is a ANTLR grammar, hopefully with
built-in evaluation code). The reference implementation is for me a key
for a
2012/6/14 Philip Barnes :
> The other usage of the term agricultural is the type of vehicle.
>
> In the UK agricultural vehicles are prohibited on motorways due to their
> slow speeds. But a farmer could use his Land Rover on a motorway as it is a
> car being used for agriculture.
Yes, unfortunat
The other usage of the term agricultural is the type of vehicle.
In the UK agricultural vehicles are prohibited on motorways due to their slow
speeds. But a farmer could use his Land Rover on a motorway as it is a car
being used for agriculture.
Phil
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 14/06/2012 14
2012/6/14 Colin Smale :
> each jurisdiction. I don't expect there to be total agreement about
> "agricultural" either. There are signs for "no agricultural vehicles", which
> in my experience refer to the type of vehicle and not what it is being used
> for at that moment. But this again may vary pe
Today we had a discussion on talk-de how to map the different pools
and reservoirs in a wastewater treatment plant. One of the tags that
came up was reservoir_type=tailings, referenced from this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir
It is not completely clear, if this ta
On 14.06.2012 13:30, Colin Smale wrote:
>> motor_vehicle:forward:(Mo-Fr 16:00-18:00) = agricultural
> At first glance this looks like a motor vehicle going "forward" between
> those times is considered "agricultural". It doesn't feel very
> intuitive, based on the established key=value paradigm.
P
On 14/06/2012 13:00, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 14.06.2012 08:38, Colin Smale wrote:
My concern with this is that it may become unwieldy and cumbersome with
anything beyond fairly trivial cases such as your maxspeed example.
For me, the goal is to make the common cases *easy*, and the rare
complex
Hi fellow mappers!
Disclaimer: I'm a relative newbie to OSM, so feel free to take my
opinions as such. (I'm not a newbie to usability,
data structure definitions or programming though.)
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Colin Smale wrote:
> Whatever syntax is used, the *primary* requirement is that it is "usa
On 14/06/2012 12:53, Flaimo wrote:
this notation has the same flaw as the current access scheme. it mixes
transportation modes and user roles. "motor_vehicle" is a
transportation mode. "agricultural" is a user role. not everywhere on
this planet "agricultural" automatically means "motor_vehicle
Hi.
I'm a little bit afraid about the discussion here and would like to
point out that a key IMHO should be different than a value.
I like the idea of "namespaces" for keys, to be able to group tags that
belong together, but I think, even namespaced stuff should belong "keylike".
A key access:
On 14.06.2012 08:38, Colin Smale wrote:
> My concern with this is that it may become unwieldy and cumbersome with
> anything beyond fairly trivial cases such as your maxspeed example.
For me, the goal is to make the common cases *easy*, and the rare
complex cases *possible*.
> For the human audie
2012/6/14 Flaimo :
>>> Maybe someone can help me defining the following access restriction
>>> using the 1.5 proposal:
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Length_and_time_restriction_2.jpg
> alternate version:
>
> access:motorized.time=Mo-Su 00:00-10:00,18:00-24:00
> access!shortvehicle.len
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:31:17 +0200
> From: Martin Vonwald
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I think I found a solution usi
On 14/06/2012 11:19, Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
Back to my idea to move all 'variables' to the value :
Let say we create a new access keyword : "condition" (or
"access_condition", "cond", "expr" or "whatever_you_like") suffixed by
a number, eg. condition1,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Yes, short and readable (IMO), but how would you express a conditional
> maxspeed?
You mean:
> access:lgv.speed=120
> access:lgv?wet.speed=80
condition1=wet
maxspeed:lgv=120 or 80 in condition1
If we consider that a special parser is re
I created a (still very small) table showing some examples for both
proposals: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt2
If you have any signposts or can provide a currently missing solution
please feel free to update this page or send me the link to the
signpost/a description and
Yes, short and readable (IMO), but how would you express a conditional maxspeed?
I suggested something similar some time ago, but people didnt seem to
be very happy with it. It was something like:
condition:=
:conditional()=
The obvious drawback is, that you always need at least two tags.
Martin
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
Back to my idea to move all 'variables' to the value :
Let say we create a new access keyword : "condition" (or
"access_condition", "cond", "expr" or "whatever_you_like") suffixed by
a number, eg. condition1, condition2, etc (unlimited but easy
I tried to express this with the other proposal. I got this:
motor_vehicle:(Mo-Fr 16:00-18:00):forward=no
agricultural:(Mo-Fr 16:00-18:00):forward=yes
goods:(Mo-Fr 16:00-18:00):forward=yes
motor_vehicle:(Mo-Fr 06:00-09:00):forward=no
agricultural:(Mo-Fr 06:00-09:00):forward=no
goods:(Mo-Fr 06:00-0
With the access 1.5 and default opening_hours syntax it would look like this:
define the rules for "forward" and "backward":
• access!forwardrule.time=Mo-Fr 16:00-18:00
• access!forwardrule.direction=forward
• access!backwardrule.time=Mo-Fr 06:00-09:00
• access!backwardrule.direction=backward
ap
I think I found a solution using a self-defined rule:
access:motor_vehicle!rule.time=10:00-18:00
access:motor_vehicle!rule.width=5+
access:motor_vehicle?rule=no
Can this be simplified somehow (using the 1.5 proposal)?
2012/6/14 Martin Vonwald :
> Hi!
>
> Maybe someone can help me defining t
Hi!
Maybe someone can help me defining the following access restriction
using the 1.5 proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Length_and_time_restriction_2.jpg
Right now I'm pretty lost. :-(
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreet
27 matches
Mail list logo
