On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:08:12PM +0200, David Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:18:37 +0200
> > From: ricoz@gmail.com
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one
> >
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:18:37 +0200
> From: ricoz@gmail.com
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one
> of its resurgence
> missing data should not prevent the mapping of known good data. If it has
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:25:52PM +0200, David Marchal wrote:
> > map the underground stream if possible.
> As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't
> map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell
> that the water only comes from one
: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one
of its resurgence
Are you referring to a stream
that, at some point, goes underground, then re-emerges to the surface at a
downstream point? These are common on karst terrain.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Are you referring to a stream that, at some point, goes underground, then
re-emerges to the surface at a downstream point? These are common on karst
terrain.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only
> Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM -
> natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable.
Well, maybe I should let that down, then, or put the data in the description
field; this way, I won't mess with the OSM data, but they'll be there if
someone is
On Wednesday 09 September 2015, David Marchal wrote:
>
> As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I
> can't map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link
> exclusive, i.e. tell that the water only comes from one point and
> exits at another? If so, I can't either,
I would say that we need a new type of relation for that.
Jo
2015-09-09 17:25 GMT+02:00 David Marchal :
> > map the underground stream if possible.
>
> As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't
> map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.
> map the underground stream if possible.
As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't map
it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell that the
water only comes from one point and exits at another? If so, I can't either, as
no-one can be s
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:55:44AM +0200, David Marchal wrote:
> Hello, there.
> I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated
> waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between
> them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which rel
Hello, there.
I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated
waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between
them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which relation? Should I tag
the resurgence by itself?
Hoping you can help,
Reg
11 matches
Mail list logo
