Scene 7. Ext. Prehistoric Planet
FORD:
You don’t seem to understand…
MAN IN CROWD:
No, no, no I just -
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
It’s a simple matter! It’s a procedural matter! That’s the point!
CAPTAIN:
Alright, alright, alright, alright!
CHAIRMAN:
I’d like to call this meeting to some sort of
On 23/01/2015 20:53, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
+1 to all of that
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Would they qualify as soft play?
No, that's a bouncy castle. Soft play is padding, not inflatables.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 23/10/2013 13:22, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
In the Netherlands, for example, there are paid and staffed outdoor
playing grounds. Currently, I have no idea whether such playgrounds
would fall under the English definition of 'soft play'.
No. The clue is in the word "indoors" in Dominic's docume
On 22/10/2013 16:43, Dominic Hosler wrote:
I have just proposed a tag to use for soft play centres.
Looks absolutely fine. There are times when I'd use it on a node when
the soft play is just one part of a larger building, but that's pretty
much standard OSM practice anyway.
Don't worry abo
On 23/10/2013 12:55, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
I think the proposal would benefit from a more precise definition.
Or you could just tag the ones you find using this perfectly sensible
tag and not worry about it.
In the UK a Soft Play is a well-recognised and well-defined concept. If
that con
On 23/10/2013 12:27, pmsg wrote:
Generally, I think it is a good idea to map access restrictions related
to dresscode.
Similar kinds of access restrictions are: No knife, no camera, no
backpack, no cellphone, no food/drinks etc.
What about not being allowed in a bikeshed unless you have a bike?
On 18/09/2013 18:15, Lukas Hornby wrote:
> HI,
>
> Having studied all of the comments, we seem to agree that a tag is
> needed, that it is worth tagging. However the ambiguity over plot (which
> was the word I used in my proposal and lot (which has been read into
> plot) seems to be a sticking poi
On 18/04/2013 16:22, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Disadvantages
> - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike path,
> or of the former train line?
The bike path, as per "On The Ground". The path is a *former* railway
line, so it no longer has the railway as its *current* name.
__
On 07/02/2013 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> but: there are antennas where the whole structure acts as antenna
> (mast=antenna). Maybe this is an example:
Yes, but unless you can explain, unambiguously how you identify those
vs. other types of mask, you're going to hit a verifiability problem
On 06/02/2013 20:59, fly wrote:
> What we call man_made=mast is still a tower and man_made=antenna should be
> mast,
> where as antennas are only the transmitter/receiver.
To this British English speaker:
Tower == any self-supporting structure, irrespective of material or purpose
Mast == Usuall
On 06/02/2013 00:50, Greg Troxel wrote:
> (I
> am also curious if a British railroad geek could explain if the OSM
> terms seem right to the railfan community.)
There was this discussion on talk-gb recently:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-January/014376.html
_
On 20/12/2012 12:10, Stephen Gower wrote:
> blazon=barry gules and argent
Barry Gules and Argent? Didn't they split up in 1974?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 10/09/2012 12:36, te...@free.fr wrote:
> I would like to store information about the legality of fishing a lake, a
> river, etc.
> Is there already any tag with such a meaning?
fishing=yes/no ?
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
Tagging mailing list
On 16/07/2012 10:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I find that surprising because it seems that sports_centre is even
more ambiguous or misunderstood - at least if someone tells me he's
going to the gym I know what they mean.
It isn't to a British person (probably). Most towns of any size have a
municip
On 13/03/2012 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> The same is true for overhanging branches and such. You can't rely on
> tags to know if an oversize vehicle can turn around.
Overhanging branches are not a physical property of the road in the same
way the central island is.
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett
On 13/03/2012 11:29, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle#Central_island
>
> The question is whether a normal-sized turning circle can be tagged as
> such if there's a small landscaped island in the middle. Here's a local
> example:
> http:
On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Is it consensus to use "sett" instead of "cobblestones" for most of
the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with
"sett".
How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap
to distinguish on a finer gra
On 29/06/2011 14:19, Mike N wrote:
I don't see these edits as out of line or unusual. It's not so
different from the dozens of other projects to create more unified
tags so that data consumers have a chance of using the right tag.
I suspect the "tags" you're talking about in other projects
On 13/07/2010 11:32, John Smith wrote:
On 13 July 2010 20:28, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
gardens (and landuse=grass is just wrong. You're using the land *for* grass?
What does that mean?)
Turf farm?
landuse=agriculture
crop=grass or crop=turf
Nice try, t
On 13/07/2010 07:37, char...@cferrero.net wrote:
How might I go about tagging the often quite extensive green stretches
of land to the side of larger roads here in Abu Dhabi (and indeed in
many parts of the world)? Sometimes this is just grass (in which case
landuse=grass kind of makes sense)
On 18/05/2010 21:56, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" wrote:
> maybe even landuse=allotments if anyone wants to tag each property
> separately.
Nope. That would be allotment=plot or something. Each plot is not a
separate garden, but just the parcel of land allocated to a tenant.
--
Jonathan (allotment
On 05/05/2010 10:24, John Smith wrote:
> It's a cascade problem...
>
> what is it... a shop
> what sort of shop... fish shop...
> what does it sell...
>
> what is it... a shop
> what sort of shop... pet shop...
> what sorts of pets...
>
> Either way you look at it, shop is the base unit, followe
On 30/04/2010 13:25, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I would go for "shop=fish". In the US, no one would hear someome saying
> they were going to the fish store and say "but they sell crustaceans and
> they aren't technically fish".
>
> fishmonger works too, but most people in the US will not really know
>
On 30/04/2010 09:57, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> I'm trying to get some input on how to tag a shop selling fish and
> seafood from some english speaking users.
For the sake of sanity I'd use
> shop=fishmonger
This describes what the shop sells in general, without getting into
whether or not it
On 25/03/2010 21:05, Antony King wrote:
> Thanks - I think. Perhaps another time you could contact the author of the
> page first - I had some external links to those pages which I've had to
> change
> in a hurry. For my part I'll make sure future pages are spaced where
> appropriate.
That isn
On 25/03/2010 14:11, antony.king wrote:
> As a result of not being able to find public outdoor play facilities
> for my disabled child, I've started a bit of a project to collect data
> on such things. To which end, there is now a project page here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accessib
On 18/01/2010 16:03, Dave F. wrote:
> A lump of coal is not energy
One A. Einstein would beg to differ.
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 24/12/2009 14:17, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Would a tag like deletion_reason=* help?
Well, that information could just go in the changeset comment. I think
the idea was more that you'd add an end_date=* tag to the feature to
show when it really disappeared (from the real world) as opposed to
being
On 24/12/2009 10:45, Erik Johansson wrote:
> Any ideas on how to indicate that a delete isn't an edit. These kinds
> of deletions are because of change of the physical world, not because
> of a better survey. There is a meta difference which some might want
> to map.
This point has been brought up
On 24/12/2009 01:13, Arlindo Pereira wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I mapped a bus route that is integrated to the subway line (uses the
> same ticket) [1]. However, this route will be no more, because we've
> built another subway station, which would change the bus route. I'd
> like to maintain the old r
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Cool. In that case, what purpose do the "proposals" serve exactly? It
> seems you don't need to wait for a proposal to pass in order to use
> it, document it, implement it in renderers...:)
There's some disagreement over that exact point. There are some mappers
(myself inc
Erik Johansson wrote:
> Yes but people say "don't tag for the renderer" which a horrible meme,
> I say "always tag for the renderer". If there is not visual
> feedbackyou are doing it wrong (except in keepright).
Only using a tag because it appears in a renderer style sheet (or
conversely not us
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Question: Do you think support in those two renderers is sufficient
> basis to document a tag in the wiki?
Mere use of the tag is sufficient basis to document in the wiki. What
the renderers support is secondary to that. If no-one ever
used/documented a tag until a rendere
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Name one road type which is inherently one-way.
>
Roundabouts, Motorway slip roads in the UK, half of a dual carriageway,
bus guideways...
My point was about newcomers to the project, who haven't sat in on
endless tedious tagging discussions (and may have no wish to do
Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> I don't think there are road types that are inherently one-way, besides
> roundabouts.
>
> This is a two-way motorway link, for example:
>
> http://maps.google.it/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.249774,9.044243&spn=0.002761,0.004914&t=k&z=18
It is indeed, but my guess is that it's an e
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> no, IMHO we shouldn't generally "imply" but tag explicitly, otherwise
> consistency is at risk.
If the tags implied by another tag were documented in a standard form,
in a central place (so any application, editor, render, etc. could read
it) would that change your min
37 matches
Mail list logo
