Dne 19.3.2014 15:51, Serge Wroclawski napsal(a):
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:30 AM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, here we go again... You are wrong. It's nothing like addr:country,
>> it's not duplicating any information, and the polyg
Dne 19.3.2014 11:08, Pieren napsal(a):
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything wrong with using addr:place even on the address
>> points that do have street name.
>
> It's like "addr:c
Dne 18.3.2014 19:49, Martin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
>
> 2014-03-18 17:52 GMT+01:00 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" <mailto:p...@pada.cz>>:
>
> > addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.
>
> Is it? In what way exactly?
>
Dne 18.3.2014 16:48, fly napsal(a):
> addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.
Is it? In what way exactly?
Just to be sure, we're on the same page, please take a look at the
explanation of terms I've send to imports mailing list.
Best regards,
Petr Morávek aka Xificurk
[
Dne 4.10.2013 13:18, Tobias Knerr napsal(a):
> Am 04.10.2013 08:24, schrieb Werner Poppele:
>> Waelder mit natural=wood sind nach meinem Verstaendnis Urwaelder,
>> Waelder im Hochgebirge oder Waelder in Nationalparks usw.
>
> Dein Verständnis ist insofern richtig, als es der derzeit herrschenden
>
Hello,
I have a few questions regarding tagging admin boundaries and places. It
seems to me that these tagging schemes overlap a bit and I would like to
discuss it and possibly reach some kind of consensus about how to Do It
Right.
1) Polygon vs point for "Populated urban areas" (place=city, town
Hello Peter,
you have raised interesting question, so I'll try to address at least
some of the questions regarding editor support and describe it from my
point of view (as user of Merkaartor).
Peter Wendorff wrote:
> The point is to keep the correct, even if deprecated work of local
> mappers int
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 02.08.2012 12:56, MilošKomarčević wrote:
>> name=* without any context of what language is recorded in it is one of the
>> biggest fallacies of OSM i18n and needs to be addressed.
>
> You need to realize, though, that mappers in areas where only one
> language is commonly
Johan Jönsson wrote:
> Sorry if I am getting to theoretical on the subject of how to write tags.
>
> I was wondering about the reason for this tag,
> *is it to explain the languages in the tag name:
> (if, like in your bruxelles-brussel example, is two names I guess that the
> order is important)
Peter Wendorff wrote:
> There are two big differences between CSS and the proposed relation stuff.
> 1) The inventors of CSS provided a working implementation for core CSS
> features
> 2) For a considerably long time css was used only very sparse and most
> of the time with a html4 styling "fallbac
Peter Wendorff wrote:
> If you rise a flag for the consumers side and decrease the mapping
> useability with that, these mappers will go away - and afterwards most
> probably the data consumers will follow, because there's no (updated)
> data any more in a reasonable quality and quantity.
I did no
Hello Chris,
please, do not put words into my mouth. I did not call you or any other
OSM contributor a monkey. And I did not call any consumer "super
important". If you think, I did, I kindly ask you to read my email again
and more carefully.
Chris Hill wrote:
> most people who make grand stateme
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Tools must serve mappers. Everything in OSM must be geared towards
> making contribution easy for mappers. Anything else is secondary;
> consumers are totally unimportant.
I think, this is the point on which we fundamentally disagree.
Consumers and data usability is importa
Johan Jönsson wrote:
> lang= is supposed to tell what languages that are used in the
> tag name=
>
> May I propose to use lang:name= instead of lang=
> (or is it name:lang=)
I don't like name:lang simply because it conflicts with the established
scheme for tagging names in different languages, e
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
>> On the other side of the spectrum is Potlach, which
>> makes anything involving relations overly
>> complicated. I've fixed my share of relation bugs, that I dare to say
>> came from these poor editing
Hello,
I've summarized [1] the ideas that were recently discussed in talk@
regarding the names, their different language mutations, ...
I would like to hear some comments, additional pros/cons I could not
think of myself, etc.
Although I was arguing for the "don't repeat yourself" solution, I ca
Hello,
first of I'm sorry for a bit longer mail, but this is just another
example of what gets me worried about the future of OSM.
This thread is another one of those, where someone came to discuss a
specific problem and proposed a solution, a solution that changes a few
old things. I fear that i
Peter Wendorff wrote:
> Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
>> If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
>> ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
>> it as I wrote in previous email. R
Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
>> 2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
>> the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
>> errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one
Peter Wendorff wrote:
> I'm not talking about data duplication in the meaning of "I add my data
> twice in different ways", but about redundant (not duplicate) data in
> the meaning of "Sven added his data there not nowing that it's possible
> here too; I add the data here - and you can check if we
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> If two instances are created at least somewhat independently*
This is a really bold assumption. I'm having a hard time to imagine a
real-life scenario, where this is true.
On the other hand, I can imagine scenarios where the cross-check will
fail simply, because someone who
Hi Peter,
Peter Wendorff wrote:
> I think, this would lead to a situation where the error count doesn't
> decrease, but the remaining errors aren't detectable any more.
>
> Having refs only on relations means for a data consumer: I have to use
> this data and I have no idea if it's correct - I hav
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am 20. Februar 2012 14:21 schrieb Volker Schmidt :
>>> There is consensus that the key
>>> "height" is describing the height of the structure from the ground to
>>> the top.
>> +1 (I think there is no other way of doing it)
>
>
> well, you could say that height is t
Martin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
>> Well, personally I would be glad if we could change the definition to
>> something like "smallest inhabited entity in the division hierarchy of
>> larger settlement".
>> I would like to use this tag for rural areas, i.e. named parts of
>> villages, because place=su
Josh Doe napsal(a):
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> There is a 'new' (formalized) proposal for place=neighbourhood.
>>
>> More details here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place%3Dneighbourhood
>>
>> Waiting for comments especially for t
Hello,
I would like to open the discussion about determining the admin_level of
administrative boundaries in Europe according to NUTS/LAU division.
Though this probably of interest only for people from EU, I don't think
there is any better mailing list for this.
There are several countries with com
Martin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> 2011/9/6 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>> as I've stated during voting, I don't think water=* is much of an
>> improvement in tagging scheme of water bodies. I'm still curious - how
>> do you tag natural lake that is use
Hello,
as I've stated during voting, I don't think water=* is much of an
improvement in tagging scheme of water bodies. I'm still curious - how
do you tag natural lake that is used as a reservoir of water? The
existence of man-made or natural water body and its usage by man kind
are simply two diff
Personally, I think of capital=* as a quick and dirty way to mark the
capitals mainly of countries (and states). To tag the centre of a lower
administrative level, add it as admin_centre role into the appropriate
relation. No need to re-invent the wheel ;-)
Petr
Colin Smale napsal(a):
> I'm not s
Ralf Kleineisel napsal(a):
> On 01/02/2011 05:42 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
>
>> This was a expected answer. I frequently try to discover the reason OSM
>> mappers accepting this anarchistic rule of NOT having tagging rules at all.
>> What are the advantages for this?
>
> I prefer this over being
Ulf Lamping napsal(a):
> Am 22.11.2010 22:28, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
>> Ulf Lamping napsal(a):
>>> First of all, please repeat a hundred times on the blackboard: There's
>>> no such thing as a deprecated tag in OSM. Especially not, if th
Ulf Lamping napsal(a):
> First of all, please repeat a hundred times on the blackboard: There's
> no such thing as a deprecated tag in OSM. Especially not, if the new
> proposal is only a few weeks old ;-)
Sure there are deprecated tags in OSM - it doesn't mean that they are
not used in the databa
Ulf Lamping napsal(a):
> Am 17.11.2010 21:43, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> Of course there is a logic, it's just a logic that you don't like and
> therefore deny to recognize ;-)
I was wondering for some time what is that logic?
> You are implying there's an "obviously correct way" to make thes
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> I set up a proposal for a new key landcover.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
>
> It deprecates very few old values (mud and sand from natural, grass
> from landuse).
Thank you very much for writing this down, this is exactly wha
Ulf Lamping napsal(a):
> Am 16.11.2010 13:51, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>> 2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping:
>>
>>> So what is the *exact* problem with surface?
>>
>> it extents the usage of surface as attribute for routable entities to
>> all kind of entities, therefore reducing simplicity for the data
>
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> 2010/11/16 John Smith :
>> I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how
>> does using landcover make this any better?
>
>
> I agree that in this case it is the same. For trees it is different.
> surface=tree doesn't make any sense. Should
Hi,
since there were no major objections to the proposal [1], I would like
to move on with voting.
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification
Best regards,
Petr Morávek aka Xificurk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
John Smith napsal(a):
> 2010/5/23 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>>> In Australia at least, recreation grounds are usually pretty specific
>>> areas used for things like horse sports.
>>
>> Even though Wikipedia says recreation isn't completely the s
John Smith napsal(a):
> On 22 May 2010 20:13, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2010/5/19 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>>> I see your point... I think the wiki definition of
>>> landuse=recreation_ground is a bit in conflict with common sense (like
>>> th
Stephen Hope napsal(a):
> 2010/5/19 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>> landuse=recreation_ground OR landuse=residential - do you know any
>> garden that is outside those two areas?
>>
>
> Formal gardens/landscaping around commercial and public buildings?
&
Liz napsal(a):
> On Sat, 15 May 2010, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
>> and the last,
>> most puzzling is landuse=basin "An area of water that drains into a
>> river."...
>>
> wow, there are some pretty huge ones of those
> like the Amazon basin
> th
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
>> landuse=recreation_ground OR landuse=residential - do you know any
>> garden that is outside those two areas?
>
> IMHO all castle gardens, as I wrote above.
> this one probably is inside "recreation_ground"
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.547484&lon=13.3874
Jonathan Bennett napsal(a):
> 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
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> Thanks for putting this up. I would actually try to reduce some of it
> to the necessary:
> "The most common form of garden, located in proximity to a residence,
> usually private access only. The main purpose is usually relaxation
> activities. " - I would delete "
Hi,
I had finally some time to write down some proposal of sub-tagging for
leisure=garden as discussed earlier.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification
Since I'm no big gardener any comments and suggestions are more than
welcomed.
Regards,
Petr Morávek
signat
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> On the other hand: I would like to see this mess tidyed up. In this
> case I suggest to first change (extend) render rules and then
> encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for
> the renderers: because it is sad to tag "correct" and you d
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> 2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>> That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly
>> changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at
>> the history, only few weeks ago t
> you are talking about "abusing" a tag, and then citing
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden where the
> third sentence is: "The most common form is known as a residential
> garden."
That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly
changed the meaning
Roy Wallace napsal(a):
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> leisure=garden
>> garden=residential
>
> Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden.
I don't see in what sense is this better - your own remark 'someone
lives in the garden?' appl
add a new leisure value, I'm opened to reasonable suggestions. I have
personally no idea what the proper english word could be.
Thanks,
Petr Morávek
Tobias Knerr napsal(a):
> Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
>> But after a while of searching the wiki, I found
>> something reasona
Roy Wallace napsal(a):
> 2010/5/10 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"
>>
>> Until there is a better solution I'll use the
>> proposed scheme of landuse='residential' + residential='garden'.
>
> FWIW, I don't like that. Look at &quo
I really really don't think it is a good idea to degrade the
leisure='garden' tag to mark everything from a castle garden,
dendrological garden (with or without public access), or e.g. small
Japanese garden belonging to a tea-house, to the extreme case of plain
cut grass in some backyard. Such a va
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> 2010/5/6 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>> To the proposed solutions in this thread:
>> * highway=pedestrian, area=yes - It doesn't really make sense to me to
>> tag private fenced and _green_ areas by highway tag.
>
>
&
I would be glad if we could resolve the question of how to tag private
backyards/gardens or whatever you want to call that in one word - I mean
the green area around family houses, often only grass, sometimes few
trees or other plants (varying from roses to a bed of carrot), usually
fenced and defi
Jonas Minnberg napsal(a):
>
> Ok so I keep running into these; green areas visible on satellite
> imagery that are tagged as parks but aren't really.
>
> My first instinct was to remove them, but that was mostly met
> with skepticism and alternative tag suggestions. So I am thinking of
> inventi
55 matches
Mail list logo
