Re: [Tagging] Railway=station + area=yes questions:

Am Montag, den 03.10.2016, 11:43 +0200 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > FWIW, railway=station was defined on areas until someone decided to > remove > it in 2015. Looking at the actual data (which the wiki should > document), > there are 10% train stations mapped as areas, usage on ways growing > con

Re: [Tagging] Railway=station + area=yes questions:

Am Montag, den 03.10.2016, 10:53 +0200 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > 2016-10-03 10:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer m>: > > > > > if it says this currently, we should change it now. > > > done I do not think you should change the definitions without any longer discussion. And using no change

Re: [Tagging] Railway=station + area=yes questions:

Am Montag, den 03.10.2016, 20:33 +1100 schrieb Warin: > On 03-Oct-16 07:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > 2016-10-03 10:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer > com  > > >: > > > > if it says this currently, we should change it now. > > > > > > > > do

Re: [Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

Hello, adding railway=disused additionally to disused:railway=* ensures backward compatibility, so that renderers which do not consider lifecycle prefixes still produce good results. It might also be easier for some renderers just to look at the value of railway=* than using rendering rules like

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 16:36 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen > wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > > > On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen > > > wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Montag, den 21.03.2016, 23:26 +0100 schrieb Daniel Koć: > Interesting idea worth testing, IMO. However I suspect in practice > there > will be lot of problems to make it really fly. > > Let's look at the similar simple idea (with scoring based on city > type > and population) used to render c

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:20 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 18 March 2016 at 22:15, Michael Reichert wrote: > > > I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable > > concept > > but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable > > and > > suitable for OSM.

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen > wrote: > > > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is > > subjective, > > but there is no alternative. > > Poppycock. Why? &

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Dienstag, den 22.03.2016, 17:41 + schrieb Philip Barnes: > On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 16:29 +, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > pon, 21. ožu 2016. u 23:28 Daniel Koć napisao je: > > > > > > Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm > > > tells > > > me > > > just having the hard

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 02:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > > > Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis : > > > > OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that > > could lead to better rendered maps or better routing. > > > > importance i

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 10:28 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and > > prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many > > international tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous > > vents and enjoy the hot sp