Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 29/01/2013 21:00, François Lacombe wrote: Hi everyone, Here is my discussion with aliponte, as suggested by Friedrich Volkmann I've contacted him last week end. I've asked him before if he minds copying it here. Thanks for making the contact with him. He is bringing up some valid points (n

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

Hi everyone, Here is my discussion with aliponte, as suggested by Friedrich Volkmann I've contacted him last week end. I've asked him before if he minds copying it here. == Bonjour fanfouer, aliponte vous a envoyé un message depuis OpenStreetMap avec

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Am Dienstag, den 29.01.2013, 13:25 +0100 schrieb Janko Mihelić: > 2013/1/29 Richard Mann > The Danube river is perfectly adequately made whole by looking > for name:en=Danube. Get the computer to do the work, not > mappers. > > What if there is a little river Danube, somew

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Hi Paul, Am Montag, den 28.01.2013, 17:47 -0600 schrieb Paul Johnson: > On Monday, January 28, 2013, Werner Hoch wrote: > There are a few of that monster relations out there: > > http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet/bd8a1061c196c9de.html > >

Re: [Tagging] Processing the tags

A.Pirard.Papou wrote: I have successfully written programs processing our tags, but 'm stuck on this problem. Given a node number or a way number, typically a street, what are the HTTP queries to send, and what is the algorithm to process the replies, to determine the relation number of which

[Tagging] Processing the tags

HI, I have successfully written programs processing our tags, but 'm stuck on this problem. Given a node number or a way number, typically a street, what are the HTTP queries to send, and what is the algorithm to process the replies, to determine the relation number of which municipality, pro

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

It's crowd-sourced data. Of course it's not reliable. You won't make it more reliable by trying to get people to impose mega-structures. Better to add further information which you can use intelligently to improve reliability (and which might well be useful for some other purpose) On Tue, Jan 29

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

2013/1/29 Richard Mann > The Danube river is perfectly adequately made whole by looking for > name:en=Danube. Get the computer to do the work, not mappers. > What if there is a little river Danube, somewhere in Ohio? I guess other tags like wikipedia=de:Donau might be ok, although it doesn't so

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Herring wrote: > It is the relation type that is at issue. I prefere this explanation rather than "it's too big for my taste". But it is also funny to read that multiple polygons relations are disliked when the relation type is called "multipolygon" ;-)

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

On 29.01.2013 11:42, Pieren wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >>> My opinion is your opinion: if there is no good reason for gigantic areas, >>> don't use them. >> +1, > > We already have "gigantic areas" for USA, Russia, India, China... > So just explain me

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

I think you are misinterpreting the one feature "rule". It's about trying to avoid situations where there are two versions of the same thing (eg an area-which-can-be-resolved-to-a-point and a node), not situations where there are multiple parts to a single whole. The Danube river is perfectly adeq

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

At the moment the "no big relations" and "no big areas" rules go directly against the "one feature in osm for one real world feature". I think those first two rules should be solved with more code. Maybe get a feature to osm api to crop the gigantic areas and other relations when downloading, defin

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

On 29/01/2013 10:42, Pieren wrote: So just explain me why what you accept for administrative boundaries is suddenly not good for rivers It is the relation type that is at issue. The problems arise when the relation type is a multipolygon with all the outers & inners of the entire river as

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> My opinion is your opinion: if there is no good reason for gigantic areas, >> don't use them. > +1, We already have "gigantic areas" for USA, Russia, India, China... So just explain me why what you accept for administrative boundari

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

2013/1/28 Martin Vonwald (imagic) : > Am 28.01.2013 um 17:26 schrieb Tobias Knerr : >> I'd like to hear your opinions. > My opinion is your opinion: if there is no good reason for gigantic areas, > don't use them. +1, cheers, Martin ___ Tagging maili