Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Did you check tagwatch for the most common reference to source:*location* ? Some from Tagwatch Australia: 60 source:location 46 source:geometry 7 source:existance 3 source:area Some others from OSMdoc (in descending order of frequency): sou

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

Hello, == Proposal == It is important to define "narrow" for highways residential, unclassified and living_street. Tag {{tag|width|narrow}} is not yet defined at [[Key:width]]. The alternatives are <=3.5m, <=3m, <=2.5m and <=2m. It is also important to know the width limit for when narrow rend

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Locksmith

Hello, Feel free to discuss about tagging of locksmiths: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Locksmith Br, Kim S ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

On 18 February 2010 22:30, Kim Slotte wrote: > Hello, > > == Proposal == > It is important to define "narrow" for highways residential, > unclassified and living_street. Tag {{tag|width|narrow}} is not yet > defined at [[Key:width]]. The alternatives are <=3.5m, <=3m, <=2.5m and > <=2m. It is also

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith wrote: > Just estimate the width, width:est=* > > Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at > least it puts a number to it > > Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have to admit that many contr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

On 19 February 2010 01:54, Pieren wrote: > Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have How is the argument given less relevent than last time? > to admit that many contributors find easier to say that a residential street > is narrower than the others instead of m

Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

At 2010-02-17 21:12, Roy Wallace wrote: >I'm a big fan of source:*=*. This allows for a road to be tagged with >e.g. source:name=survey + source:surface=nearmap > >But there doesn't seem to be any way to specify the source of a >feature's *location*. I've been using semi-colon-separated values lik

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Cycleway conditions

Hello, Since the voting is a bit half-way I request your attention to get it finalized: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cycleway_condition Br, Kim S ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, John Smith wrote: > If I form an opinion stating 2m is narrow and someone forms an opinion > stating 4m is narrow how is that helpful in the least? > Narrow on foot or narrow in a truck imply different widths. So I'm in favour of estimating a width for this purpose, and not "n

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hollow way

Hello, A second round of discussion is needed before going for voting: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/hollow_way Give especially comments about the different alternatives found in the summary. Br, Kim S ___ Tagging maili

Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

On Thursday 18 February 2010 12:18:45 Roy Wallace wrote: > 1) Use source: to refer to geolocation, where is some string > that is never going to be used as a key on its own, or > 2) Redefine source=* to refer to the geolocation of the feature only > (as opposed to all tags of the feature) 3) Nuke

Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

On 19 February 2010 09:22, Cartinus wrote: > 3) Nuke alle source tags on database objects, because they are not data but > metadata. Then put decent descriptive comments/tags on your changesets. While this is true, unless you upload multiple changes and only use those sources for that change set

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Cycleway conditions

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Kim Slotte wrote: > Hello, > > Since the voting is a bit half-way I request your attention to get it > finalized: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cycleway_condition There seem to be 9 or 10 "oppose" votes, and no "approve" votes. There is no

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pieren wrote: > > Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have > to admit that many contributors find easier to say that a residential street > is narrower than the others instead of making wrong estimates. Um... just because it may

Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

On Friday 19 February 2010 00:36:45 John Smith wrote: > when you can just tag the object based on the > sources used to create or modify it. This is all nice and fine for the short term in those areas where you are filling in a blank map. But over time more and more people will be editing existi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

Pieren wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith > wrote: > > Just estimate the width, width:est=* > > Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at > least it puts a number to it > > Don't give again the same argument

Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: > > I have no opposition, though, to the more precise: > > source:location=survey;usgs_imagery + source:name=survey;image;LACA source:location=* sounds good, as long as there is never going to be a location=* key introduced (which would then make

Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Cartinus wrote: > > 3) Nuke alle source tags on database objects, because they are not data but > metadata. Then put decent descriptive comments/tags on your changesets. This doesn't solve the problem (please start a new thread if you want to talk about changeset

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. wrote: > > If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should > never hve picked up a GPS in the first place. Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note="road looks narrow - please confirm width" ___

Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?

On Friday 19 February 2010 01:17:40 Roy Wallace wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Cartinus wrote: > >Then put decent descriptive comments/tags on your > > changesets. > > How would you explictly indicate the source of the geolocation of > features, as opposed to the source of other informa

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

Roy Wallace wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. wrote: > >> If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should >> never hve picked up a GPS in the first place. >> > > Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note="road looks narrow - please > confirm width" >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Narrow width

On 19 February 2010 10:19, Roy Wallace wrote: > Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note="road looks narrow - please > confirm width" Which is what was being suggested in the proposal on the wiki: > Lets say we define "narrow" as approximately <=3m. Then a way with width=2.5 > will be rendered