On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Erik Johansson wrote:
> We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is
> pointless.
Or at least repeat it with the appropriate nuances: "Don't use
semantically incorrect tags to achieve a short term goal based on the
current behaviour of one part
I don't know, they seems to be in pretty bad shape a lot worse than
the ones depicted in the wiki.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Am 29/mar/2013 um 09:37 schrieb Erik Johansson :
>
>> I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an
>> attraction nor a
Am 29/mar/2013 um 09:37 schrieb Erik Johansson :
> I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an
> attraction nor a shelter,
>From what the op wrote it seems these are shelters.
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetma
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andreas Labres wrote:
> On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote:
>> This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though
>
> If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I
> said).
>
> But don't tag it for this reason: "to incr
On 28.03.13 11:25, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Tourism=attraction is quite an ambiguous tag.
It is a good hint what to highlight on/in a tourist map/app. Of course this is a
subjective decision, but it is of value that somebody did this decision. But not
if it is based on "to increase the chance of ren
On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote:
> This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though
If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I said).
But don't tag it for this reason: "to increase the chance that the historic=*
actually renders as something..."
2013/3/28 Andreas Labres
>
> Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it
> as a
> tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction.
Tourism=attraction is quite an ambiguous tag. What is attractive to
tourists? Who decides that? I think that's more of a job for
h
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andreas Labres wrote:
> On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually
>> renders as something...)
>
> Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as
> a
> tourism=a
On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote:
> tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually
> renders as something...)
Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as a
tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction.
/al
___
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> looking at the tags maybe
> historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and
> the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can
> get food and accomodation, while tourism=wilderness_hut is for p
2013/3/27 Volker Schmidt :
> What about:
> amenity=shelter
> historic=alpine_hut
> ruins=yes (if appropriate)
looking at the tags maybe
historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and
the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can
get food and accomoda
The English/Scottish word for it is "bothy". But it might be better to use
something a bit more internationally-intelligible.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> What about:
> amenity=shelter
> historic=alpine_hut
> ruins=yes (if appropriate)
>
> Volker
> (Padova, Italy)
>
Hi!
2013/3/27 Volker Schmidt :
> What about:
> amenity=shelter
> historic=alpine_hut
> ruins=yes (if appropriate)
Simple. Straight forward. Mostly established tags, besides the value
of historic. +1 from me.
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@ope
What about:
amenity=shelter
historic=alpine_hut
ruins=yes (if appropriate)
Volker
(Padova, Italy)
On 27 March 2013 05:16, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
> Just wondering how best to tag the historic "alpine" huts we have in
> the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties:
> - us
Hi all,
Just wondering how best to tag the historic "alpine" huts we have in
the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties:
- usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily
weatherproof
- usually have fireplaces
- sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in
15 matches
Mail list logo
