2010/5/14 John Smith :
> You missed the important point I made, which was the bit about these
> types of tags being incosequential in the entire scheme of things,
> documenting them is more important than any vote when it won't have
> any great effect on anything else.
I (obviously) don't agree
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 21:21, John Smith wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 13:12, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Do we agree there is a basic goal of getting everyone to tag the same
>> way? Perhaps the "propose-comment-vote-implemented" lifecycle is not
>> right, but "just start using these values" is too weak.
So as I'm adding things I also try to fix bad alignments, doing things like:
* Make bordering landuses share nodes, moving the nodes for the least
"static" ie if a forest lies next to a lake, move the forest nodes since the
lake may be derived from real data, whereas the forest is probably just
pl
2010/5/14 Jonas Minnberg :
> What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having
> different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as
> separate but with shared nodes?
IMHO the more you can separate them, the better. Usually I would
expect (in a "final" s
Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>
> When is it OK to remove an overlapping landuse ? In some places I
> found 3 overlapping landuses and it's not clear which one has priority...
When you have visited the area and found out what the real landuse is?
Cheers, Chris
___
Roy Wallace napsal(a):
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> leisure=garden
>> garden=residential
>
> Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden.
I don't see in what sense is this better - your own remark 'someone
lives in the garden?' appl
* Jonas Minnberg [2010-05-14 16:39 +0200]:
> What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having
> different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as
> separate but with shared nodes?
I feel that separate ways that share nodes along the joint wall makes t
2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
> And the added bonus of abusing leisure=garden tag... Let me one more
> time explain what I think is wrong on this tag, so here is an example:
> Step two: Which one of these lines better describes the area?
> A) Place where flowers and other plants are grown
This is, at least in part, a difference between different dialects of English.
Your definition A below (place where plants are grown in a structured and
decorative manner) would be classified in both Britain and the USA as a "flower
garden". Both places would also use the term "vegetable garde
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for
> the last couple of months, and I hope that we've covered all the
> ground that needs to be covered by now. Could those that care to vote,
> cast your votes on
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for
> the last couple of months,
And you did a very good job, I've always wondered what to call those
hanging roundabouts myself.
_
On 15 May 2010 00:32, Richard Finegold wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:barrier is
> the template used for barriers in the Map Features wiki page. The
> existence of this template arguably makes the tags consequential in
> the entire scheme, as Map Features is self
While preparing the proposed playground equipment tagging schema, it
occurred to me that there are lots of instances of 'micro mapping'
where detail is being added to cover stuff like litter bins, gates,
playground equipment, grass verges etc, rather than 'big' stuff like
roads, parks and so on. I
Hi,
i added tags to a shop (a way representing a building) and expected the name to
show up on the main map. But if you zoom in, the name appears only in one zoom
level and disappears in the highest zoom level. Other buildings in the area are
tagged in the same way and do not show this behaviour
On 15 May 2010 02:47, k...@vielevisels wrote:
> Hi,
> i added tags to a shop (a way representing a building) and expected the name
> to show up on the main map. But if you zoom in, the name appears only in one
> zoom level and disappears in the highest zoom level. Other buildings in the
> area are
Hi John,
Thanks,
now it's working like it should!
Kai
- Original Message -
From: "John Smith"
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:53 PM
Subject: [english 95%] Re: [Tagging] Tagging Problem, name not shown
> On 15 May 2010 02:47, k...@vielevisel
> you are talking about "abusing" a tag, and then citing
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden where the
> third sentence is: "The most common form is known as a residential
> garden."
That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly
changed the meaning
* Erik Johansson [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]:
> If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it
> exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes
> shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there,
> and baby=no that there aren't any big structures
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Erik Johansson [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]:
>> If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it
>> exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes
>> shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys
On 15 May 2010 04:23, Phil! Gold wrote:
> Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated'
> or 'baby=official'?
It might be confusing to tag something arbitary as baby, wouldn't it
be better to tag age appropriateness? and height appropriateness for
that matter.
For exam
On 15 May 2010 04:42, John Smith wrote:
> On 15 May 2010 04:23, Phil! Gold wrote:
>> Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated'
>> or 'baby=official'?
>
> It might be confusing to tag something arbitary as baby, wouldn't it
> be better to tag age appropriateness? and
2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
> That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly
> changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at
> the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely
> different (although it was marked as a
On 15 May 2010 04:37, Erik Johansson wrote:
> Sure, I only want to use baby=yes to tag if there is toys for babies.
> This is mostly used for swings so I'm not entirely sure it's needed.
> :-)
There could be an exclusive area for toddlers, another for children
and so on, imho instead of saying ba
On 15 May 2010 05:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> OK, I see what you mean (I was confused anyway because I remembered
> also a different content ;-) ). Still the old version is IMHO not
> useful either. On one hand it is an identical meaning to park. On the
> other "decorative" and "structured" a
OK, some real world examples;
* Two overlapping wood-areas, one named, the other not.
* Grass inside grass landuse, rock inside grass landuse etc - is the rule
that wholly interior (possibly sharing nodes with the exterior) areas are
always rendered on top of its exterior area?
__
Oh and I forgot:
* landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>
> OK, some real world examples;
>
> * Two overlapping wood-areas, one named, the other not.
>
> * Grass inside grass landuse, rock inside grass landuse etc -
2010/5/14 Jonas Minnberg :
> Oh and I forgot:
> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1
is this inside a building or are there platforms or what is the
purpose of this layer-tag?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@
On 15 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> Oh and I forgot:
> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1
Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.ope
2010/5/14 Jonas Minnberg :
> OK, some real world examples;
> * Two overlapping wood-areas, one named, the other not.
Generally it's a good idea to tidy up your area, given you know the
area, so in this case: either you know the extent of the named area in
real life, or you shouldn't touch it.
>
Well the area around where I live is a wonderful mish-mash of overlapping
landuses, and many roads sharing nodes with landuse-borders and I think it's
too much work to get it straight for now...
In the case of the grass/forest overlap: That was a grassy-looking area
containing houses (so actually
2010/5/14 John Smith :
> On 15 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>> Oh and I forgot:
>> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1
>
> Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance?
you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional
geoscience land
My view was that baby=yes was shorthand for minage=0, maxage=about 4 -
more a recommendation of age appropriateness than a hard limit. Also
it was intended for the equipment rather than the whole play area -
though in the unlikely case of an entire play area being for babies
there wouldn't be any r
On 15 May 2010 05:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional
Even you seem to agree this is a good idea...
> geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a
> given area in a generalized way. Unfortunately this is not true
2010/5/14 John Smith :
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden
>
> I don't really see what the big deal is, leisure=garden can mean a lot
> of different things to a lot of different people, so it needs to be
> sub-tagged,
+1
and one possible w
On 15 May 2010 06:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> garden=english_garden|french_garden|japanese_garden|water_garden|horticulture|lawn
>
>
> -1, this seems pretty inconsequential ;-). If you go for structuring
> garden tagging, you cannot mix landcover (lawn), typology (english /
> french) and oth
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/5/14 John Smith :
> > On 15 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> >> Oh and I forgot:
> >> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1
> >
> > Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance?
>
>
> yo
On 15 May 2010 06:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>> >> Oh and I forgot:
>> >> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1
>> >
>> > Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance?
>>
>>
>> you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional
>> geoscience landuse
On Sat, 15 May 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a
> garden.
>
My grass is rarely cut (climatic reasons) and we have left the main grassed
area to become /meadow/.
It's not a garden now in any English term, and is a /yard/.
Liz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a
>> garden.
>>
>>
> My grass is rarely cut (climatic reasons) and we have left the main grassed
> area to become /meadow/.
> It's not a garden now in any
2010/5/14 Liz :
> On Sat, 15 May 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a
>> garden.
>>
> My grass is rarely cut (climatic reasons) and we have left the main grassed
> area to become /meadow/.
> It's not a garden now in any English
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Chris Hill wrote:
> You have animals grazing? Or perhaps you cut it for hay or silage? If
> not then it's just an unkempt garden, just letting the grass grow
> doesn't make it a meadow, except perhaps in pretentious gardening
> programmes :)
>
I guess you assumed I lived in
On 15 May 2010 07:04, Liz wrote:
> I guess you assumed I lived in a city area. I don't.
> So if you leave your garden alone it reverts to meadow.
> I am no longer supporting a plant monoculture but a variety of plants which
> vary with the seasons.
> 10 years of drought give a low likelihood of fe
Liz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010, Chris Hill wrote:
>
>> You have animals grazing? Or perhaps you cut it for hay or silage? If
>> not then it's just an unkempt garden, just letting the grass grow
>> doesn't make it a meadow, except perhaps in pretentious gardening
>> programmes :)
>>
>>
2010/5/15, John Smith :
> On 15 May 2010 06:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>>> >> Oh and I forgot:
>>> >> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1
>>> >
>>> > Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance?
>>>
>>>
>>> you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> 2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>> That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly
>> changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at
>> the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely
>> di
2010/5/15 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
> That's the thing, I'm not convinced that a lawn should be tagged as
> leisure=garden just because it's behind a fence around a family house.
To me it isn't the lawn that makes the garden, but the fact that the
garden can be viewed as a relaxation area adjoin
2010/5/15 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
>> but before neither ;-)
>
> I disagree, it was pretty simple to ask myself if the area is "Place
> where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured
> manner or for scientific purposes." - Botanical garden - yes, Japanese
> garden belong
On 15 May 2010 11:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> and other plants grown in a decorative and structured way, but not if
> they were growing herbs or vegetables (but yes again if they were
> growing stuff with scientific interest),... ;-)
Market gardens grow vegtables in a small plot smaller tha
2010/5/14 John Smith :
> On 15 May 2010 05:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Thanks for opening a new thread.
> I filed a bug for surface=grass, we also possibly need one for
> natural=beach, surface=sand|gravel etc...
+1
>> encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for
On 15 May 2010 11:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> yes, we should. Most of them are already present in "nature".
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/t
2010/5/15 John Smith :
> On 15 May 2010 11:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> yes, we should. Most of them are already present in "nature".
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
the thing is: the amount of different values makes it already hard to
actually use these e.g. in bicycle-rou
On 15 May 2010 13:37, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> the thing is: the amount of different values makes it already hard to
> actually use these e.g. in bicycle-routing (there is x types of paving
> stones, ...). When this started there were only 2-3 values: paved,
> unpaved and cobblestone. Untill n
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Chris Hill wrote:
> No I didn't assume anything, except that what you have is land attached
> to a house. That is a garden. Green or not, maintained or not. Decked,
> paved or grassed, cultivated or not. A meadow is agricultural land.
>
still wrong, the area under discussio
On Sat, 15 May 2010, John Smith wrote:
> Market gardens grow vegtables in a small plot smaller than a farm, but
> not always joined to a house.
>
farms differ in size - particularly between one part of Australia and another
so just a "small" farm for market_garden size
___
On 15 May 2010 15:51, Liz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010, John Smith wrote:
>> Market gardens grow vegtables in a small plot smaller than a farm, but
>> not always joined to a house.
>>
> farms differ in size - particularly between one part of Australia and another
> so just a "small" farm for marke
55 matches
Mail list logo
