Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby care

On 06.12.2013 02:24, Satoshi IIDA wrote: > > Hi list, > > I have created a proposal page to describe Baby care schema. > It's now on RFC stage with this mail. > > Please feel free to add your comments on the page. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/babycare Your proposal

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] IENC of the German WSV

Le 11/12/2013 11:15, Malcolm Herring a écrit : It is not "rather than", but "as well as". The harbour object is tagged with a list of *available* facilities, the tag values being free text to qualify those availabilities. e.g. "harbour:toilets" could take the value "private, access by code".

Re: [Tagging] Propose the tag shop=military_surplus

On 06.12.2013 14:25, Dan S wrote: > 2013/12/6 Axelos : >> Hello >> >> Le 05/12/2013 12:16, SomeoneElse a écrit : >> >>> Axelos wrote: I proposed the tag shop=military_surplus for the shops selling used military equipment. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Military_surplus

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] IENC of the German WSV

On 11.12.2013 11:58, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Malcolm Herring > wrote: > >> Anyway, this thread is about the import, not the tagging! I know that we all >> love to argue about tags, but this is best done in the tagging list. > > Yes, what is the best tag for "wifi" or "t

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:24 PM, bulwersator wrote: > With mountain ranges there would be a major problem where node should be > placed. Carpathian Mountains cover 190 000 km² - good luck with edit wars > where node should be placed. > > It'd be a way, not a node. And maybe there are strong guid

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

> it won't be a clearly defined border where some meters more or less matter or > are clearly definable IMO one can always ask the locals/local geologists "is this location/point a part of the mountain/mountain range". At some point, "everybody" agrees that it is, and somewhere further down the

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/12 Elena ``of Valhalla'' > big human settlements tend to be associated with one or more clearly > define legal entities and we tend to map those, not the actual > settlement. > actually we are mapping both, and there is no compelling reason to refrain from mapping one or the other... c

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On 2013-12-12 at 12:37:30 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/12/12 Andrew Guertin > > Many villages or other small human settlements have no clearly defined > > boundaries, and we just represent them as a node. > IMHO big human settlements are more difficult than small ones when it comes > t

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/12 Andrew Guertin > Many villages or other small human settlements have no clearly defined > boundaries, and we just represent them as a node. > IMHO big human settlements are more difficult than small ones when it comes to define their edges. You can represent (from a data model point

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

With mountain ranges there would be a major problem where node should be placed. Carpathian Mountains cover 190 000 km² - good luck with edit wars where node should be placed. It probably would work better as a separate database. On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:09:47 -0800 Andrew Guertin

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On 12/12/2013 05:53 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/12/12 Steve Bennett IMHO it would be nice to have an alternative dataset in lower zoomlevels for geographic regions and extended/blurry features, something like a set of shapefiles with translations into all languages we can provide, somet

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/12 Steve Bennett > (a "mountain range" is really an abstraction over a number of individual > mountains, and it's up to some sort of geologists' consensus where it > begins and ends). > +1, and it won't be a clearly defined border where some meters more or less matter or are clearly def