>would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g.
`boundary=administrative + administrative=police`
New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed
for these purposes if warranted. Don't adopt `boundary=administr
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:34 PM Martin Machyna wrote:
>
> Just to add to this. I agree that there needs to be a cut off. I would
> suggest that as long as the area has clearly defined boundaries (in
> accessible official documents) and it was defined or is actively used by
> country's administr
Just to add to this. I agree that there needs to be a cut off. I would
suggest that as long as the area has clearly defined boundaries (in
accessible official documents) and it was defined or is actively used by
country's administrative officials or agencies then that would constitute
for accepting
On 5/31/20 3:34 AM, Daniel Westergren wrote:
Ok, I took the liberty of drafting a proposal for a general
description of how to map pathways (that is, all highways that are not
for motor-vechicles). See
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PtBPFDW3EHrBHl5sy8L-_5a0xNR1w-9YXt-gmfMB_M/edit?usp=sh
Always keeping two things in mind:
1. mappers must have a way to map it from survey, even if no other
information is known, and leave further tagging to people who have this
extra information: basic tagging from appearance.
2. Renderers and routers must do something with the basic-mapped object,
>
> As I recall, a long time ago this thread started off with the concern
> "people from the city might die on this hiking trail". Is that a
> function or a physical characteristic?
>
That wasn't my main concern when starting the thread, but it was for others
(which is why these kinds of discussio
> you are touching on an essential misunderstanding in this conversation, a
> misunderstanding that we encounter in many different discussions in OSM.
>
> Those " words that people normally would associate ...", i.e. "path",
> "footway", "track", ... are *code* words, they do not have any intrinsic
On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 03:16, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> Ok, two things.
>
> Function vs physical characteristics
> First, I've increasingly realized what's probably at the heart of this 12+
> years discussion, the enormous problem of interpreting
> highway=path|footway|cycleway (just like is cu
sent from a phone
> On 31. May 2020, at 14:45, Lorenzo Stucchi
> wrote:
>
> But since the ecomuseum is not just a physical limited space but it is a sum
> of areas of different municipality, I should add the tag on that big area?
you could create a multipolygon and make them one distribute
But since the ecomuseum is not just a physical limited space but it is a sum of
areas of different municipality, I should add the tag on that big area?
Should I use the tag museum=ecomuseum?
Best,
Lorenzo
Il giorno 29 mag 2020, alle ore 11:49, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>
sent from a phone
> On 31. May 2020, at 02:26, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> Most tracktype=grade1 are probably highly suspicious
depends on the area, in southern Germany at least in some areas, most tracks
are actually paved with asphalt (while being explicitly closed to
non-agricultural traffi
Daniel,
you wrote
On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 09:18, Daniel Westergren wrote:
> But words like path & footway is telling a different story and confusing
> most mappers.
>
> And some say that highway=path either can mean a wilderness path or, if
> used with foot/bicycle=designated, a combined, urban
Ok, I took the liberty of drafting a proposal for a general description of
how to map pathways (that is, all highways that are not for
motor-vechicles). See
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PtBPFDW3EHrBHl5sy8L-_5a0xNR1w-9YXt-gmfMB_M/edit?usp=sharing
I find the wiki terrible for collaborations
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:17 PM Daniel Westergren wrote:
> Should we close the discussion in this mailing list, continue in a smaller
> format and then report back the concluding suggestions for confirmation
> before implementing? Or is there still enough interest to keep the entire
> discussion
May 31, 2020, 02:24 by aamac...@gmail.com:
> Most tracktype=grade1 are probably highly suspicious.
>
Highly depends on a location.
Not in Poland where asphalt forestry road are normal.
(and misuse that is present is mostly using highway=track to mean
surface=unpaved)
Ok, two things.
*Function vs physical characteristics*
First, I've increasingly realized what's probably at the heart of this 12+
years discussion, the enormous problem of interpreting
highway=path|footway|cycleway (just like is currently being discussed about
highway=track) in two entirely confli
16 matches
Mail list logo
