Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > >> Mike Thompson wrote on 2016/01/28 17:49: > > Climbing areas, including crags, are hierarchical in organization and > suitable for representation as a relation > > Interesting idea, might become tricky to realise. Next question, > does it he

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

Richard wrote on 2016/01/28 16:36: Hi, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Climbing was sitting around and evolving for 8 years. If there are no objections I would promote its status to "in use". Well it is in use indeed, and the tag page has already further developed than th

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

I am not opposed as I think it is a good starting point, but I have these comments: "Crags" are only small areas My understanding from 15 years in this activity is that a "crag" is a small area as explained here [1]. At least in the US, no one would refer to El Cap [2] as a "crag" yet it is someth

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

W dniu 28.01.2016 10:45, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): 2016-01-27 16:45 GMT+01:00 Daniel Koć : * shop types (as already mentioned on proposition page) * amenity types (like fast_food + pub) * long inscriptions on monuments/memorials (above 255 chars) those all don't seem valid examples, a p

[Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

Hi, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Climbing was sitting around and evolving for 8 years. If there are no objections I would promote its status to "in use". Afaics it has never attracted significant controversy, does not trigger any technical difficulties, there is demand f

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 28/01/2016, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28/01/2016 8:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2016-01-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo > >: >> >> You barely broach the subject of how MV and namespaces combine. For >> example if an object has mu

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 28/01/2016, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-01-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > >> You barely broach the subject of how MV and namespaces combine. For >> example if an object has multiple refs with sources, it should be >> clear wether an MV tag corresponds to "multiple sources for al

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 27/01/2016, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2016-01-27 22:54, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Concerning foo_1 vs foo[1] vs foo:1, I this the last one can be safely >> thrown to the idea bin (despite being used by seamarks) because ':' >> clashes with namespacing, which is firmly established. foo[1] looks

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

2016-01-28 12:43 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Sounds like there are formally two distinct bodies in Paris which share > buildings and staff. calling them distinct is a bit of a stretch, given that location and people are the same. There one "thing" that does cover both admin levels. They might act

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

I didn't have any "concerns", I was looking for clarity about what was meant by an "institution" given that a "city hall" was cited as an example... Sounds like there are formally two distinct bodies in Paris which share buildings and staff. The fact that a given council meeting is either one thi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

Colin, Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Paris and tell me if it answers your questions and if I understood your concerns. - althio On 28 January 2016 at 12:10, Colin Smale wrote: > What do you mean with "institution"? Is that a single building housing > multiple organisations

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

What do you mean with "institution"? Is that a single building housing multiple organisations, or is it a single organisation fulfilling multiple constitutional roles? A "City Hall" sounds like a building. Organisations sharing a building probably happens quite a lot, but I would expect that gover

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

On 27 January 2016 at 15:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in > an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd > normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially > people will say "the government

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

On 28 January 2016 at 11:47, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> Only problem: if an institution >> serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only >> the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no dif

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Only problem: if an institution > serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only > the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no different > from "government:level=state;local". Do you have an e

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

2016-01-27 21:38 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > government:level=federal,state,local ? > OR > > This could also be operator tag = federal_government, etc ... that would > be more consistent? > > OR > use admin_level tag from the boundaries tag > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag

Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"?

There's an explanatory notice in Cambridge University Botanical Gardens, indicating that fens are fed with water from limestone / chalk springs, which is relatively alkaline, whereas bogs, being fed by rainwater, are relatively acidic. The different pH means that different ranges of plants will gr

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 28/01/2016 8:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2016-01-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo >: You barely broach the subject of how MV and namespaces combine. For example if an object has multiple refs with sources, it should be clear wether an MV tag

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

Hoi, I'd like to share some thoughts about the ``How to implement MV in OSM'' question, as opened in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multivalued_Keys I'd prefer to first have explicit agreement that we actually need MV ... but as the implementation discussion is already roll

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

2016-01-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > You barely broach the subject of how MV and namespaces combine. For > example if an object has multiple refs with sources, it should be > clear wether an MV tag corresponds to "multiple sources for all the > refs" or to "source for the 2nd ref". In

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

2016-01-27 16:45 GMT+01:00 Daniel Koć : > * shop types (as already mentioned on proposition page) > * amenity types (like fast_food + pub) > * long inscriptions on monuments/memorials (above 255 chars) > those all don't seem valid examples, a pub serving fast food is still a pub, a shop fitting

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

2016-01-28 6:59 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Use the layer key? > > barrier=fence > fence=barbed_wire > layer=0 ... not required > > barrier=fence > fence=wire_electric > voltage=300 > layer=1 > > Would need two ways ... messy. Not good. > we could use a relation to avoid overlapp

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 28/01/2016 4:52 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: Other keys that might need multiple values: * barrier / fence_type : barbed wire with an electrified wire on top. A wall with barbed wire on top ,... We need some kind of vertical order here. Use the layer key? barrier=fence fence=barbed_wire layer=0