On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:02:37 +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>> As far as I'm concerned, the difference in what's required to tag
things
>> is minimal between these concerns. Therefore, wouldn't it make the
most
>> sense to choose whichever
Ulf Lamping writes:
> Am 12.04.2010 19:54, schrieb Anthony:
>
>> Well, I now see that there are a few. I still don't understand why,
>> though, and I don't think we should keep doing something which makes no
>> sense just because we've done it in the past.
>
> It's not (only) because we've done
John Smith writes:
> On 13 April 2010 06:02, Matthias Julius wrote:
>> maxheight + maxwidth and maybe a new trailer=no?
>
> I was hesitant to use the word 'trailer' since it means different
> things in different variations of English, and it's not the only th
John Smith writes:
> On 12 April 2010 02:33, Anthony wrote:
>> Now, if we really want to start a flame war, maybe I should ask whether or
>> not to include "bicycle=no" :).
>
> While your comment is tongue in cheek, most drive throughs have
> height/width restrictions and usually don't allow tow
Eugene Alvin Villar writes:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Pieren wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have indeed tagged a couple of these, using "highway=service,
>>> service=drive-through, access=private, oneway=yes".
>>>
>>>
>> highway=service + onewa
Steve Bennett writes:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> Wikipedia is clearly different from OSM in that there is exactly one
>> relevant way of viewing a Wikipedia entry: Visiting the page on
>> wikipedia.org. Everything else is an afterthought, used by a small
>> minority
Ulf Lamping writes:
> Am 05.02.2010 12:26, schrieb Tobias Knerr:
>
>> My opinion is that personal preferences like that shouldn't be part of
>> the OSM database. No "my favourite Sunday walk" route relations, no
>> subjective "food=extremely_tasty" for restaurants, and no "my favourite
>> image o
Emilie Laffray writes:
> 2010/1/27 Liz
>
>> I've started "office=" tags
>> and have put in something simple for what I have found
>>
>> office=accountant
>> office=solicitor
>> office=secretarial services
>> office=insurance
>>
>> I do find that some period of experimental tagging helps me sort
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> ... To meet both problems you can only do this:
>> alcohol=yes
>> coffee=no
>> pastries=yes
>> egg & chips=yes
>
> I like this approach.
I don't. I don't want to revisit each place each week to see whether
the m
Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
> 2010/1/20 Peter Childs
>
>> In my book its easy.
>>
>> Cafe Usually Unlicensed.
>>
>
> Definitely I would not put licenses and other legal stuff into the
> definition. They differ almost certainly in different countries, are of no
> importance to the client and
John Smith writes:
> 2010/1/21 Erik Johansson :
>>
>> I tried mapping open_hours of shops, but it's just too much work with
>> my current work flow anyone with a good solution for it?
>
> crowd source it, photo the shop information and stick it somewhere
> accessible for the arm chair mappers to
Steve Bennett writes:
> The wording is *completely* wrong for the *entire* english speaking world.
>
> Definition of power=generator: "power station"
> Definition of power=station: "substation"
> Definition of power=sub_station: "transformer"
>
> I don't think you can get much wronger than that.
John Smith writes:
> 2010/1/19 Matthias Julius :
>> Well, I guess he meant "physical" in the sense of a physical object -
>> something you can touch, see and has a volume and mass.
>
> Ummm... electrons have mass...
But electrons are not power. If you want to ha
Anthony writes:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave F. wrote:
>
>> To me power is energy. It's not a physical entity.
>>
>
> That's just silly. Energy is a physical entity.
Well, I guess he meant "physical" in the sense of a physical object -
something you can touch, see and has a volume a
John Smith writes:
> 2010/1/7 Matthias Julius :
>> John Smith writes:
>>
>>> Well relations aren't ways, the ways go through/under/ buildings.
>>
>> Do they? Did I miss something? Last I know is that they are rendered
>> on top of buildings eve
John Smith writes:
> Well relations aren't ways, the ways go through/under/ buildings.
Do they? Did I miss something? Last I know is that they are rendered
on top of buildings even if they are on a lower layer.
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tag
John Smith writes:
> 2010/1/7 Matthias Julius :
>> John Smith writes:
>>
>>> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
>>> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
>>> extra preprossesing in o
"Mike N." writes:
>> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
>> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
>> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
>> polygons + info from the lookup table
>
> What is the adva
John Smith writes:
> As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
> the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
> extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
> polygons + info from the lookup table
Does osm2pgsql have that
Alex Mauer writes:
> On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
>> a highway occurring:
>>
>> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
>
> In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be
> used for cu
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Matthias Julius wrote:
>>
>> If you know the actual incline you can tag it with its value. If you
>> have to estimate it anyway then a hard definition on what is steep is
>> not worth that much anymor
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
>>
>>> But that's my point - sure, you don't want to lose "semantics" i.e.
>>> "meaning". But IMHO "steep" is *meaningless*.
>>
>> Why
Steve Bennett writes:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
>
>> Of course, everyone can tag what he wants anyway. The question is what
>> we want to encourage.
>>
>
> This is like saying "Anyone can drive at whatever speed he wants
Anthony writes:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any other "official" node tags that depend on a parent way to
>>> be fully defined?
>>>
>
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Matthias Julius
> wrote:
>>
>> 'up/down' is in there to be able to tag an incline where the exact value
>> is not known. Adding '_steep' would allow to differentiate a little.
>> Of c
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Matthias Julius
> wrote:
>> I would also add the values 'up_steep' and 'down_steep'
>> to 'incline=*' for this to be a equivalent replacement of the highway
>> tags.
>
> -1. T
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>
>> but it still is strange to tag a node with a tag the meaning of
>> which depends on a way, isn't it?
>
> Or more precisely, depends on a direction.
This is exactly my point. It is unexpected (at least to
Roy Wallace writes:
> Also, incline=* is still mathematically valid for nodes to indicate
> the instantaneous incline at that point, so I don't see a problem with
> that.
The problem with nodes is that you can't tell to which way the incline
applies when there is more than one connecting to the
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Matthias Julius wrote:
>>
>> The rendering of this is not only a matter of z-ordering since we
>> probably don't want those roads to be simply covered up by the
>> building. Instead they should be rend
The tags 'highway=incline' and 'highway=incline_steep' only apply to
nodes. Therefore, they are prone to become ambiguous when more than one
way use that node. Also, they don't have a reversed counterpart and
when the way is reversed there is a problem.
IMO, inclines should always apply to ways
John Smith writes:
> 2009/12/27 Roy Wallace :
>> therefore there must be some tag I have missed)? Are there really no
>> ways already mapped (and rendered correctly) that pass through a
>> building? Undercover service=parking_aisle's, for example? No?
>
> Probably not, at least not buildings, sin
"Randy" writes:
> Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:
>>
>>Well i got a list from the postal service over all the postal boxes
>>the list is like this
>>
>>Postal nr | City | where it is | Address
>>
>>and the column "where it is" is an ordinary description of where it
>>is,possible values are attach
:* nodes
>
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Matthias Julius
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> it is the address of the building that the box is attached/fixet onto or
>>>> the
>>>> building that is closest to it
>>>
>>> Then I would
"Martin Fossdal Guttesen" writes:
> ------
> From: "Matthias Julius"
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 3:09 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Post_Box and addr:* nodes
>
>> Roy Wallace writes:
>>
&
Roy Wallace writes:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Martin Fossdal Guttesen
> wrote:
>>
>> but i dont know if or how i should tag the addres where the box is, every
>> post box has an address with an street name and an number
>
> If the "post box has an address", I'd suggest tagging the post
Steve Bennett writes:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> (It is often easier to get something included in the Osmarender layer
>> which has a tradition of showing more stuff and putting less emphasis on
>> aesthetics. You can even edit Osmaredner stylesheets yourself and
Chris Hill writes:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>> How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers,
>> e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such
>> (e.g. "Customers only"), or may not.
> I would add access=permissive. You can a note=* tag to describe it in
>
Anthony writes:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> As in, bicycle=carriage_prohibited.
>
> You can't have bicycle=carriage_prohibited along with bicycle=no. It
> needs to be a different tag altogether, because it represents
> something different.
I guess it is implied t
38 matches
Mail list logo
