John Smith wrote:
> So...
>
> kosher=yes
> kosher=rabbanut
> kosher=badatz
Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious, I would never have thought of
this myself.
BTW: It's perfectly alright to use your magic eraser, and actually cut
off large portions of what you're replying to. We've read that
2009/10/16 Lennard :
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> So...
>>
>> kosher=yes
>> kosher=rabbanut
>> kosher=badatz
>
> Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious, I would never have thought of
> this myself.
>
>
> BTW: It's perfectly alright to use your magic eraser, and actually cut
> off large portions of wha
John Smith wrote:
> No need for sarcasim either, if you don't want to see it again get a
> better MUA that hides it... At least that's what people are told when
> their MUA doesn't support other features...
Some people just don't listen when things are alluded to them, never
mind when they're out
2009/10/16 Lennard :
> John Smith wrote:
>> No need for sarcasim either, if you don't want to see it again get a
>> better MUA that hides it... At least that's what people are told when
>> their MUA doesn't support other features...
>
> Some people just don't listen when things are alluded to them,
2009/10/16 Lennard :
>
> BTW2: It's halal. What you lack in replying restraint, you make up for
> with extra letters?
>
Maybe where you come from, they write it that way. Not near me they
don't. And seeing as it is an English transliteration of a foreign
language term, don't expect consistency in
> Alternatively, can you add a tag on the ways of
> "addr:inclusion=actual" (as opposed to "addr:inclusion=potential")?
> Then give me your username. I'll find the ways based on that tag.
>
> With this tag and 15-20 houses per way, I'm sure I can fix them faster
> than you can add them. This as
Stephen Hope wrote:
> Maybe where you come from, they write it that way. Not near me they
> don't. And seeing as it is an English transliteration of a foreign
> language term, don't expect consistency in spelling. I've lived in
Where is 'near me', then?
> countries were it is pronounced hah-lah
2009/10/16 Lennard :
> Stephen Hope wrote:
>
>> Maybe where you come from, they write it that way. Not near me they
>> don't. And seeing as it is an English transliteration of a foreign
>> language term, don't expect consistency in spelling. I've lived in
>
> Where is 'near me', then?
>
>> countri
Stephen Hope wrote:
>Sent: 15 October 2009 3:01 AM
>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] schools
>
>I think the operator tag needs some careful documentation if you're
>going to use it this way.
>
>Take this local (to me) school as an example
>www.stjosephsbrackenr
2009/10/16 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) :
> tenant=). If there are more parties in the chain then its not so difficult
> to think of appropriate tags. And as you say, if the role is governance,
> then an administrator= tag might work.
I think you may have similfied things a little too much, an
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Markus Lindholm
> wrote:
> > I guess the follow-up question then is: what if there are multiple
> > POIs that have the same addr:housenumber? Should it be duplicated on
> > all the POIs?
>
> If you're going to add a distinguishing address featur
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Lennard wrote:
> BTW2: It's halal. What you lack in replying restraint, you make up for
> with extra letters?
My keyboard doesn't write Arabic, but I'm quite sure it ain't halal or hallall
or halall - that any transliteration is probably missing something
On a social scale,
Rather than having a bot go round making the data more complicated (and in
the case of very large lakes with lots of islands, and ponds on those
islands, it would be very, very complicated), surely it is better to have a
table available somewhere for people to go look up whether a polygon has
multi
2009/10/15 Anthony :
> "School" and "lake" are not landuses though, are they?
might be, but you'll surely find 2 landuses (as used in OSM) on the same place.
> I'm not even sure "forest" is a proper "landuse" tag. I guess if it's
> meant to mean "tree farm" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_far
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Anthony wrote:
> > now ease our pain and accept it.
>
> I do accept it, but it's wrong, so I want to fix it.
That is reasonnable thinking.
What ever the solution is (fix it in the osm database automatically, construct
export aware with the fix, re-think the multipoly
2009/10/15 sly (sylvain letuffe) :
> On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> For the lake in the forest: do you agree that someone would say: the
>> lake (pond) is in the forest? Like a way in the forest, which doesn't
>> have trees growing on it, but still is in the forest. It is n
Liz schrieb:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Lennard wrote:
>> BTW2: It's halal. What you lack in replying restraint, you make up for
>> with extra letters?
> My keyboard doesn't write Arabic, but I'm quite sure it ain't halal or
> hallall
> or halall - that any transliteration is probably missing somethi
2009/10/15 Anthony :
> I fully agree with you - as I said, I think landuse=forest should be
> reserved for things like tree farms, where the *use* of the land is
> growing trees.
that might be your personal opinion, but don't expect mappers
worldwide to map according, as they treated it differentl
2009/10/15 Ben Laenen :
> Anthony wrote:
>> The problem with the landuse tag is it's being used for multiple
>> things. On one hand, it's being used to describe what the land is
>> being used for - if people are using the land as their residence, the
>> land is tagged landuse=residential. On the
On vendredi 16 octobre 2009, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Currently big lakes in Finland have been tagged as coastlines which is a
> good workaround and looks correct in slippy maps. However, it is not
> right, because they are not seas but just lakes.
I would myself prefer to use something else to
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2009/10/15 Ben Laenen :
>> Anthony wrote:
>> The only way I see we can solve all this is to get a new tag which is
>> exclusively used for ground cover. Such a tag would then stop having all
>> ambiguity, and stop all discussions like
2009/10/16 Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> +1, I agree. Inside a landuse=residential we could than map the
> different surfaces. I'd suggest to use the key surface for the
> ground-cover, or is there a problem with it?
>
>
Having a ground-cover tag would be perfect.
Emilie Laffray
__
On vendredi 16 octobre 2009, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> 2009/10/16 Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> >
> > +1, I agree. Inside a landuse=residential we could than map the
> > different surfaces. I'd suggest to use the key surface for the
> > ground-cover, or is there a problem with it?
> >
> >
> Having a grou
Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> wrote:
> > 2009/10/15 Ben Laenen :
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >> The only way I see we can solve all this is to get a new tag which is
> >> exclusively used for ground cover. Such a tag would then stop having all
> >> ambiguity,
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ben Laenen wrote:
> It obviously failed at that completely. The most used tags
> (landuse=residential, industrial, farm, commercial, military, retail...) don't
> give any detail about ground cover. It has become so bad that I don't see a
> way to even try to fix th
Pieren wrote:
> It doesn't fail so much because most of the time, landuse values are
> exclusive (residential, industrial, forest, etc). It is already enough
> complicated to add polygones or multipolygones for landuse. We can see
> that this is only done in countrysides or small urban areas but no
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Richard Mann
wrote:
> Rather than having a bot go round making the data more complicated (and in
> the case of very large lakes with lots of islands, and ponds on those
> islands, it would be very, very complicated), surely it is better to have a
> table available
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Residential isn't exclusive at all. Not to say that what it's actually used
> for in OSM can have different meanings amongst different mappers. You'll find
> many parks in OSM for example inside a residential polygon. I've never seen
> holes in
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis.
A typical example of a land use map:
http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/mastermap2006www.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Residential isn't exclusive at all. Not to say that what it's actually used
> for in OSM can have different meanings amongst different mappers. You'll find
> many parks in OSM for example inside a residential polygon.
park is "leisure", not "la
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>> Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis.
>>
>> A typical example of a land use map:
>> http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/
On vendredi 16 octobre 2009, Ben Laenen wrote:
> By far
> most uses I've seen for landuse=residential are for areas which are
> generally
> used for where people live, and usually have entire villages or cities
> inside
Terribly true.
> Either the landuse=residential/industrial/... kind of
Anthony wrote:
> Well then "ground cover" isn't what we need. We need "land use".
>
> Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact
> that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is
> fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to g
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> Well then "ground cover" isn't what we need. We need "land use".
>>
>> Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact
>> that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is
>> fine, as a
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis.
>
> A typical example of a land use map:
> http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/mastermap2006www.jpg
>
Here is another "typical" examp
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Randy Thomson wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Markus Lindholm
>> wrote:
>> > I guess the follow-up question then is: what if there are multiple
>> > POIs that have the same addr:housenumber? Should it be duplicated on
>> > all the PO
Anthony wrote:
> Maybe we need "ground cover". I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we
> do.
Well, all topographical maps I've seen seem to be convinced of ground cover.
This is ground cover for example:
http://www.ngi.be/Templates/zoom.htm?doctitle=uittreksel&image=../images/1/1/extr10_vismijn.jp
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> Maybe we need "ground cover". I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we
>> do.
>
> Well, all topographical maps I've seen seem to be convinced of ground cover.
>
> This is ground cover for example:
> http://www.ngi.be/Templates/z
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Randy Thomson wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, can you add a tag on the ways of
>> "addr:inclusion=actual" (as opposed to "addr:inclusion=potential")?
>> Then give me your username. I'll find the ways based on that tag.
>>
>> With this tag and 15-20 houses per way, I'm
hi all,
I worked a little more off the coast of tofino
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.1205&lon=-125.9333&zoom=12&layers=0B00FTF
You can see where the error is..
The error was (hopefully) caused by the clock-wise/ counter clockwise switch
i did yesterday, just to see what happens.
. Its int
40 matches
Mail list logo
