Re: [Tagging] Resorts

2013-02-02 Thread Kytömaa Lauri
>buffers), I think a landuse= value is appropriate. It isn't >residential, industrial, or retail. Probably the same landuse tag is >appropriate for a big resort as for a regular hotel. In the beginning it took a while to realize, that the osm tagging system as-it-was-at-the-start omits some ta

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types

2013-02-02 Thread Christopher Hoess
Response to selected comments: On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > +1 > these are all bridge values with more than 100 occurrences, my > comments inline after the percentages: > > yes > 1 656 829 97.79% the very most > ✔ > null Not surprising, given that other than

Re: [Tagging] Resorts

2013-02-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/2/2 Greg Troxel : > I think amenity=hotel belongs on the building, and something like > landuse=tourism on the entire property. don't like landuse=tourism, as this is confusing (would be tagged to churches, disneyland, archaeologic sites, hotels, ...) amenity=hotel should be on the whole ho

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types

2013-02-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/2/2 Christopher Hoess : > what should be the values for > the "bridge" tag? > > I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between > "abandoned", "damaged", "removed", etc. as I don't have a > well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is > sufficiently complicat

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bridge types

2013-02-02 Thread Christopher Hoess
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/1/13 Paul Johnson : >> Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some other >> indication that it's referring to the general engineering and architecture >> of the bridge rather than the vague "type" which mi

Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

2013-02-02 Thread Christopher Hoess
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/1/31 Martin Vonwald : >> In my opinion this is a rather obvious approach therefore I'm not >> surprised that someone already came up with it earlier. But I am >> definitively surprised that we don't have any documentation in the >

Re: [Tagging] Resorts

2013-02-02 Thread Greg Troxel
My standard plea: we are building a taxonomy of the world, and our tagging scheme should be jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, when that makes sense. For marking the area of land used by the resort area (including buffers), I think a landuse= value is appropriate. It isn't residential, i