2010/10/13 Matthias Meißer
> Inspired by the discussion on the "Successful proposal" proposal discussion
> I restarted the discussion about improving the map features management on
> the german forums:
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9604
>
> Everybody feel free to join the disc
Of course Pieren, but I just wanted to point out, that there is still a
discussion. I'm aware of the fact that german users are only a subset of
all mappers worldwide, but it might be a good way to talk it on a
localized level and then compare the results with others.
Matthias
___
> But how do we deal with the map features list, should they be managed?
> Managed by who? Managed by which guidelines?
If map features were really to be mantained as an official list of OSM
features, then they should be somehow enforced in applications. A sort
of "OSM certification" for consumers
Nice aspects Pieren,
I agree your point of view concerning votes and how decissions were
taken by (a smal part of) the community.
Ok so your idea seem to be very familar to this idea 'garage'/incubator
with the aim to discuss an feature idea more to vote on it?
Yes voting is not represantat
2010/9/7 Matthias Meißer
> Hi, there were no more ideas till somebody mentioned, that the voting
> process cant be repaired.
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-August/004023.html
>
> Can anybody tell me why it cant be repaired or how we should manage the Map
> feature list in
2010/8/31 Matthias Meißer :
> Is there any reason why you discuss this tag using this title?
> This is anoying cause my filter dont match.
Is there any reason you don't quote any text so that we would know
what you're talking about?
___
Tagging mailing
Is there any reason why you discuss this tag using this title?
This is anoying cause my filter dont match.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
2010/8/31 Nathan Edgars II :
>> Oops it's not lost. It's on the waterway=river and waterway=stream wiki
>> pages.
>
> So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but don't know
> the direction of flow, (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow,
> or (c) it's an artificial drainage can
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> flow seems relevant information only for boat and navigation, i suppose
> boat can't go into this kind of waterway...
Actually flow is primarily relevant for, well, flow. Where will the
chemicals on your lawn end up when it rains?
__
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> > (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow,
>
> A stagnant channel is a strange thing, almost imossible. If its really
> stagnant it's a natural=water or landuser=eservoir.
> Else if it's a waterway it has a flow...
Common situation here on
If you procedd posting culvert related mails under this general topic
nodoby will be able to find them in the future. So please return to the
right discussion topic.
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetm
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
> So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but don't know
> the direction of flow,
You can put a fixme="flow direction is unknown"
> (b) it's a stagnant channel with no real flow,
A stagnant channel is a strange thing, almost imossible. If its really
stagnan
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:10 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> ---Original Email---
> Subject :Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
> From :mailto:nerou...@gmail.com
> Date :Mon Aug 30 20:44:53 America/Chicago 2010
> So how do you specify that (a) you mapped a waterway but d
rapidly
enough that its surface level was temporarily higher than in the upstream
section, making that a downhill flow also.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
>From :mailto:nerou...@gmail.com
Date :Mon Aug 30 20:44:53 America/Chicago 2010
On Mon, Aug
On 30/08/2010 21:48, Pieren wrote:
And if you go ahead with this article:
"When boxes or pipes are placed side-by-side to create a width of
greater than twenty feet, the culvert is defined as a bridge in the
United States"
And if you go on reading it says " This is a requirement of the feder
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> On Monday 30 August 2010 19:19:21 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> How else would you tag water flow?
>
> Somewhere, probably lost in the depths of time, it was agreed that waterflow
> is modeled by the direction of the waterway way without a oneway tag
On 8/30/10 6:49 PM, Stephen Hope wrote:
On 31 August 2010 08:36, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Also, how do you reverse a way?
In JOSM, you just use Reverse way. Don't know about potlatch, but it
would have to be there somewhere, or you can't get one way streets to
work properly.
there's a litt
On 31 August 2010 08:36, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> Does "direction of the original drawing" mean that the nodes should be
> marked from upstream to downstream?
Yes. Except I usually work the other way, then reverse the way. Or
draw a little bit the right way, then add from the other end, which
On 08/30/2010 03:35 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>
>
>>> That's true, but IMHO the "wrong" way is tagged there: the culvert
>>> should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is.
>>>
>> What do you mean by "where it is"? The culvert is the structure that
>> carri
On Monday 30 August 2010 19:19:21 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> How else would you tag water flow?
Somewhere, probably lost in the depths of time, it was agreed that waterflow
is modeled by the direction of the waterway way without a oneway tag.
Oops it's not lost. It's on the waterway=river and wat
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
>
> I'm not sure i have understand, but (for me) a culvert can't "carries a
> road over" ; a culvert is a kind of tube that goes under a structure to
> allow water to go throught a roadrail...
>
> Wikipedia for example tell :
> "A culve
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
> > That's true, but IMHO the "wrong" way is tagged there: the culvert
> > should go on the waterway, i.e. where it is.
> What do you mean by "where it is"? The culvert is the structure that
> carries the road over the waterway.
I'm not sure i have understand, but (for me
Ok this seem to be a problem but again, is this related in some way with
'Non proposed features'?
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II :
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384
>> If this was tagged culvert=yes rather than bridge=culvert, it wouldn't
>> be clear whether it's a bridge or tunnel.
>
> That's true, but IMHO the "wron
2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> Can you show me the example? I don't understand "structure" and I
>> would like to know, which kind of "way" it is (what are the other
>> tags?).
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384
> I
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Can you show me the example? I don't understand "structure" and I
> would like to know, which kind of "way" it is (what are the other
> tags?).
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48598384
If this was tagged culvert=yes rather than
2010/8/30 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II :
>>> culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or
>>> underneath?
>>
>>
>> our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like
>> that, isn'
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II :
>> culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or
>> underneath?
>
>
> our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like
> that, isn't it?
OK, so if you have culvert=yes on
2010/8/29 Nathan Edgars II :
> culvert=yes is ambiguous: does it refer to the object on top or
> underneath?
our tags refer to the object they are associated with. Simple like
that, isn't it?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetm
I not sure if this has anything todo more with proposed features...
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Cartinus wrote:
> On Sunday 29 August 2010 11:27:03 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> > Then we got the people who like pointless discussions that wanted to
>> > change something they were not even mapping.
>>
>> I've used bridge=culvert and tunnel=culvert since long bef
On Sunday 29 August 2010 11:27:03 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> > Then we got the people who like pointless discussions that wanted to
> > change something they were not even mapping.
>
> I've used bridge=culvert and tunnel=culvert since long before the
> recent discussion.
You are user NE2 not?
Then
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Cartinus wrote:
> On Sunday 29 August 2010 07:59:51 John Smith wrote:
>> however the current suggestion of a do-ocracy seems doomed to
>> end in endless/pointless disputes as well, take a look at the most
>> recent pointless thread over culverts.
>
> That is actual
On 29 August 2010 18:59, Cartinus wrote:
>> It might work fine in this case, however if it's a bad idea, for what
>> ever reason, and it needs to be changed in future, it's almost
>> impossible at present. So the point at which tags are created is the
>> only point in general to have these discuss
On Sunday 29 August 2010 10:45:21 John Smith wrote:
> On 29 August 2010 18:40, Cartinus wrote:
> > That is actually not an example of the do-ocracy way. Because the people
> > that do (those who tagged culverts) had pretty much united behind
> > culvert=yes.
>
> It might work fine in this case, ho
On 29 August 2010 18:40, Cartinus wrote:
> That is actually not an example of the do-ocracy way. Because the people that
> do (those who tagged culverts) had pretty much united behind culvert=yes.
It might work fine in this case, however if it's a bad idea, for what
ever reason, and it needs to b
On Sunday 29 August 2010 07:59:51 John Smith wrote:
> however the current suggestion of a do-ocracy seems doomed to
> end in endless/pointless disputes as well, take a look at the most
> recent pointless thread over culverts.
That is actually not an example of the do-ocracy way. Because the people
On 29 August 2010 16:34, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> Perhaps all contributors should be required to vote one way or the other. It
> should not be an option, and failure to do so after agreeing to such, should
> have penalty/consequence(like OSMF having right to then convert it to ODbL).
So are you s
Perhaps all contributors should be required to vote one way or the other. It
should not be an option, and failure to do so after agreeing to such, should
have penalty/consequence(like OSMF having right to then convert it to ODbL).
Eric Jarvies
On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
2010/8/28 Matthias Meißer :
> You write in the wiki that it is unable to repair it and spot on a working
> group.
Just so we're clear, I mean the current prescribed method of requiring
people to vote on proposals is broken, there is thousands of
contributors and most proposals don't get more than
Yes in some way but I pointed on thinks that are in my opinion the
problem. There might be others that I don't see, right?
You write in the wiki that it is unable to repair it and spot on a
working group.
I think this will be a nice idea even if it might result in a discussion
if this centrali
2010/8/28 Matthias Meißer :
> How can we improve this process?
Didn't you already ask this on one of the wiki pages?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I added an hint on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:No_proposal explaining why a
page had been labeled as no proposal.
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I see your point James, so might moving /Proposed to a more general term
solve a part of the problem?
I agree that voting isn't a very nice sollution for acceptance of an idea
but I like the style of having a garage where everybody is free to see my
idea and to extend it :)
regards
Matthias
On 17/08/2010, at 2:09 AM, Matthias Meißer wrote:
> Yes soft moderation by the community but therefore the community needs some
> central space and some guidelines. You already see the lack of voters, just
> cause it's to decentral communication atm.
It's also because some people (myself include
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
> Concluding less than six hours after your initial post to this mailinglist
> that nobody has a problem with what you propose is: youthfull exuberance ?
> impatience ? It is certainly is not the way to go.
6 hours isn't one rotation of the earth, and certainl
>1. So what is your idea? What do you think of how it can be improved?
>2. Yes of course, otherwise I wouldn't ask here ;) But once again,
this is not a good/bad feature discussion. It's just the question of new
and may be problematic features should be taken back to /proposed for
further disc
> Hi everybody,
>
> as I noted in my diary, the forums,...
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/!i!/diary/11477
> I would like to improve the features page and other wiki pages around.
>
> Therefore I asked at the talk page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features#Cleanup_Request
Sry @all, was my mistake, what I tried to say is that I will improve the
/proposed page (and only this one). So restyling, splitting text but
nothing on the features itself, is this ok?
Yes you can read MLs in a forum or RSS like way, but mostly you have to
be member of the mailinglist to part
On Monday 16 August 2010 22:07:07 Matthias Meißer wrote:
> So nobody really has a problem with refactoring /Proposed, right?
Yes, many people will have a problem with that. The people actually voting on
the wiki are a very small group. Pushing tags already documented and in use
back into the pro
2010/8/17 Matthias Meißer :
> Well ok might be possbile but for that reason there are other channels e.g.
> forums, MLs that have their own pros and cons.
There is software that can show mailing list posts in the same way as
forums, the forums are only used by a minority of people, most people
see
Well ok might be possbile but for that reason there are other channels
e.g. forums, MLs that have their own pros and cons.
So nobody really has a problem with refactoring /Proposed, right? If so
it would be nice if you review the upcoming changes. But this will take
time cause I'm involved in
2010/8/17 Matthias Meißer :
> But OSM is more than just the major lists (see people like me that sign
> on/off lists to avoid to much mails). As I said it would be a good idea to
> feature our proposal incubator a little bit more ;) I'm pretty sure if the
> users have no Push but a Pop media (e.g.
But OSM is more than just the major lists (see people like me that sign
on/off lists to avoid to much mails). As I said it would be a good idea
to feature our proposal incubator a little bit more ;) I'm pretty sure
if the users have no Push but a Pop media (e.g. the weekly newsletters)
they wou
2010/8/17 Matthias Meißer :
> opinion. Thats why nobody knows that there are new features, nobody talked
> about it, nobody made a review :(
But they do get talked about, take for example this thread where
someone added a shop that no one seems to agree with:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/piperm
Am 16. August 2010 18:09 schrieb Matthias Meißer :
> central space and some guidelines. You already see the lack of voters, just
> cause it's to decentral communication atm.
RFC and voting start are announced on talk-list and often on some
local lists as well. I fear that the lack of voting contr
Well I'm not talking about undoing very common features but about a few
new ones that seemed to be a bad design (even if I like the idea to get
a feature e.g. for OFFICE=*). For fine tuning is the /Proposed list, right?
Yes soft moderation by the community but therefore the community needs
som
Am 16. August 2010 16:31 schrieb Matthias Meißer :
> I checked the current german map feature list and noticed a lot few features
> and key that are new but non proposed. I beg the authors to move them out of
> the list back to the proposed features.
this might not in all cases be justified. Actu
Well, this idea is not to telling you do's and dont's, it's just to
manage ideas.
IMHO the current process lacks a few details that are mentioned (and can
be discussed by everyone here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features#Cleanup_Request
As some of you might noted with t
cool,
in this system. do you recommend the creation of a wiki page for each
tag that is used and each tag that is thought of?
if so, thats great!
if not, thats unfortunate, as every tag is important to know its
purpose just because the expert mappers know most of the tags off
by heart, doe
On 16/08/2010 16:31, Matthias Meißer wrote:
Hi everybody,
as I noted in my diary, the forums,...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/!i!/diary/11477
I would like to improve the features page and other wiki pages around.
Therefore I asked at the talk page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Pr
61 matches
Mail list logo
