On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 May 2010 01:24, Stephen Gower wrote:
>> Those calling for shop=fish rather than shop=fishmonger - what would you use
>> for
>> the pet fish shop?
>
> How many pet shops would there be that only sell fish?
>
> I'm guessing a small minority
On 5 May 2010 17:16, Erik Johansson wrote:
> There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near
> me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like
> shop=fish.
I haven't seen any pet shops that only sell fish, but as for shops
selling equipment to catch fish,
Am 05.05.2010 06:17, schrieb John F. Eldredge:
> Yes, that is the origin of the term. However, usage of words shifts over
> time, often into multiple meanings, depending upon context. From what I have
> heard, a "coffeehouse" in Amsterdam, Holland, now means a place that sells
> marijuana, not
Am 05.05.2010 07:47, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> On 4 May 2010 18:14, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>> 1) allow for the specification of more than one type simultaneously,
>>> e.g. amenity=A;B, amenity=B;C, etc., or
>>> 2) change/specify in more detail the de
On 5 May 2010 18:30, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> BTW: The flowchart is using highly subjective language
> "heavily-advertised pseudo-food" which is *very* certainly not a good
> way to find a concensus. Why does it try to offence junk food fans? Oh,
> and the definition of "pseudo food" will very certain
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Erik Johansson wrote:
> There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near
> me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like
> shop=fish.
Personally, I don't really like the idea of a myriad distinct "shop=*"
tags - it means a
On 5 May 2010 19:16, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Personally, I don't really like the idea of a myriad distinct "shop=*"
> tags - it means any software that deals with the data has to support
> them all, or report merely "some kind of shop".
It's a cascade problem...
what is it... a shop
what sort of
On 05/05/2010 10:24, John Smith wrote:
> It's a cascade problem...
>
> what is it... a shop
> what sort of shop... fish shop...
> what does it sell...
>
> what is it... a shop
> what sort of shop... pet shop...
> what sorts of pets...
>
> Either way you look at it, shop is the base unit, followe
On 5 May 2010 20:27, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> To be consistent, your example above should really be:
>
> what is it... a shop
> what sort of shop... food shop...
> what sort of food...
can't get much more generic than that...
___
Tagging mailing list
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> To be consistent, your example above should really be:
> > what is it... a shop
> > what sort of shop... food shop...
what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs
cooking/preparing
___
On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz wrote:
> what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs
> cooking/preparing
He's talking about this sort of thing:
shop=food
food:ocean_fish=yes
food:shellfish=yes
food:river_fish=no
___
Tagging mailing list
On 5 May 2010 22:10, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz wrote:
>> what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs
>> cooking/preparing
>
> He's talking about this sort of thing:
>
> shop=food
> food:ocean_fish=yes
> food:shellfish=yes
> food:river_fish=no
>
shop=food
f
I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was
wondering if it was OK do to things like:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that
way instead.
* Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really
parks (adding a tree_li
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that
> way instead.
Is there a good reason you want to reduce information?
> * Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really
> parks (adding a tree_line
2010/5/5 John Smith :
> On 5 May 2010 22:10, John Smith wrote:
>> On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz wrote:
>>> what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs
>>> cooking/preparing
>>
>> He's talking about this sort of thing:
>>
>> shop=food
>> food:ocean_fish=yes
>> food:shellfish=yes
>>
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to
> that
> > way instead.
>
> Is there a good reason you want to reduce information?
>
Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Remov
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
>
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>> > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to
>> > that
>> > way instead.
>>
>> Is there a good reason you want to reduce information?
On 5 May 2010 23:12, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good
> thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane was
> to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my
> limited resolution GPS. It
On 5/5/10 9:12 AM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>
> Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a
> good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and
> cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It
> avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. I
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> >> > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to
> >> > that
>
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
> I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was
> wondering if it was OK do to things like:
>
> * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that
> way instead.
no, you should rather do the opposite: remove the preliminary t
cleway into the highway).
>
> So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then
> draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
Well, not exactly, I draw only when I survey them on the ground,
therefore I know how they are connected with each other. And f
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then
> draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the
inevitable...
> A bad compromise would
On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park.
This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as
landuse, the only landuse=grass I can think of is turf farms,
surface=grass is more appropriate...
> +1,
>> A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as
>> fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just
>> leave lots of useless areas...
>
> If they aren't parks, then what are they?
>
Wouldn't it be smart to tag it as fixme for surveying on the ground,
a
Re sidewalks and cycle tracks. Best bet is to put them on both the
road (footway=yes; cycleway=track) AND as separate ways (maybe with a
tag like micromapping=yes to boot); there's not going to be agreement
any time soon on which is preferable.
Richard
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, John Smith
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> > So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should
> then
> > draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
>
> That's where things are headed, removing existing
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> >> A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as
> >> fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would
> just
> >> leave lots of useless areas...
> >
> > If they aren't parks, then what are they?
>
2010/5/5 John Smith :
> On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park.
>
> This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as
> landuse, the only landuse=grass I can think of is turf farms,
> surface=gras
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
>> If they aren't parks, then what are they?
>
> They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For
> instance;
use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not wrong regarding landuse-use ;-) in general.
cheers,
Martin
__
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
> >> If they aren't parks, then what are they?
> >
> > They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For
> > instance;
>
>
> use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not wrong regarding landuse-use ;
On 6 May 2010 00:16, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> while I understand you and generally would agree this is not
> OSM-reality. landuse-OSM is not landuse as you would guess by the
> actual meaning. As long as surface or landcover are not rendered this
> won't change, despite all "don't map for the
On 6 May 2010 00:12, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> Of course I have been surveying on the ground :) Same street as in the
> streetview link but from my own camera:
>
> http://swimmer.se/not_a_park.jpg
surface=pavers ?
Although you are also welcome to map individual trees :D
__
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
> Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? :9
>
> Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it is
> a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying
> over it.
I must admit I didn't look
2010/5/5 John Smith :
> the amenity=fast_food is the primary function of the POI, it has a
> secondary functions of cafe=yes, restaurant=yes and
> drive_through=yes...
yes, but what do you do if all those functions are primary? Sometimes
this is the case.
Gruß Martin
___
On 6 May 2010 01:06, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> yes, but what do you do if all those functions are primary? Sometimes
> this is the case.
Multiple POIs... or one node with multiple relations...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>> > So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should
>> then
>> > draw sidewalks next to every street in the city th
OK, I think I'm beginning to understand the lay of the land.
What I most wanted to get acknowledged is that data gathered first hand on
street level should trump data traced from low-res satellite images.
I will not remove any walkways or cycleways that are adjacent to other ways.
I will align PO
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren wrote:
> What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of
> time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can
be
> walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
> would
> be more clever
If the sidewalks are next to the road, and in Europe, you can probably
rely on people assuming them by default (unless you advise otherwise).
Clearly in other places, it may be necessary to tag them explicitly.
Richard
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
> I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to
> be consensus on that.
I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and
I'll even go so far to say it is wrong if they are not connected). The
open question is whether this should inv
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:49 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
> > I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to
> > be consensus on that.
>
>
> I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and
> I'll even go so far to say it is wrong
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg :
> Well since we need space for all those thousands of sidewalks that people
> want to add maybe we better leave space around all roads anyway :)
IMHO the sidewalk (and the street) are not part of the adjacent
landuses anyway. I thought you were asking for landuses one to
>What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of time.
Around here, sidewalks can be such a novelty that I recently read a request
of someone looking for a map of my city with sidewalks -
"Does anyone know if a map exists showing which streets have sidewalks ..."
htt
Please feel free to view and comment on this proposal for shop:seafood
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/seafood_shop
Claudius
Am 05.05.2010 15:09, Peteris Krisjanis:
> While discussing this, can we create proposal page for shop=seafood?
_
Hi,
Just wondering when the use of : of . is most appropriate with regard to
namespace tags in mind. Some examples like this tree:height=20m or
shop.restaurant.parking=yes is what I mean.
Is the : de-facto the namespace divider of choice or does the . come into
view for some reasons sometimes?
2010/5/5 ivom :
> Just wondering when the use of : of . is most appropriate with regard to
> namespace tags in mind. Some examples like this tree:height=20m or
> shop.restaurant.parking=yes is what I mean.
>
> Is the : de-facto the namespace divider of choice or does the . come into
> view for some
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:09 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> On 6 May 2010 01:06, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > yes, but what do you do if all those functions are primary? Sometimes
> > this is the case.
>
> Multiple POIs... or one node with multiple relations...
I would think a semi-colon delimited v
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1179/amenity.gif
>
> You are asking for black and white definitions/decisions where there's
> lot's of room for grey.
There's only "room for grey" (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want
there to be.
> What
At 2010-05-05 08:55, Pieren wrote:
>...Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be
>walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
>would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed,
>imo. Say where things are missing, not whe
Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace:
> There's only "room for grey" (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want
> there to be.
Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion.
> I think I do understand your point, though, that you think it better
> to keep using thes
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace:
>
>> There's only "room for grey" (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want
>> there to be.
>
> Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion.
Ok. Though I don't understand,
On 6 May 2010 06:12, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this
> case - certainly better than "multiple POIs", and no less supported
> than "multiple relations" (right?)
If an app supports relations, it wouldn't matter if there is 1 or 10,
however mos
Roy Wallace writes:
> Ok, I'll give up. But I will just point out that, while you insist it
> is "just asking for trouble", imagine a wiki page that says something
> like:
>
> "If you're not sure whether the place should be tagged as an
> amenity=restaurant, cafe or fast_food, this flowchart is
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:41 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 6 May 2010 06:12, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this
>> case - certainly better than "multiple POIs", and no less supported
>> than "multiple relations" (right?)
>
> If an app supports rel
> +1. Micromapping may be "on the rise", but that doesn't mean it's
> necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying,
on
> administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by
> contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2,
maxspeed=25
>
by discount store, i mean the largish stores like WalMart, Target, K
Mart, etc.
they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large
for the value general. what are people typically using?
richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggi
On 6 May 2010 11:24, Richard Welty wrote:
> they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large
> for the value general. what are people typically using?
shop=department_store seems to fit to me:
"A single large store - often multiple storeys high - selling a large
variet
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> by discount store, i mean the largish stores like WalMart, Target, K
> Mart, etc.
>
> they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large
> for the value general. what are people typically using?
>
>
I would tag them as
On 6 May 2010 11:59, Katie Filbert wrote:
> Though, many Targets and Super Walmarts have large grocery sections, so they
> could also get shop=supermarket, and there might be a McDonalds, Pizza Hut
> or Taco Bell Express, and other things. Thus, we have the issue with how to
> assign multiple val
60 matches
Mail list logo
