Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 27 July 2010 15:59, S.Higashi wrote: > How about a fire extinguisher[1]? I don't think this is a good idea, as they are 2 completely different things... > Could it be included to fire_hydrant tag? > Seems the same purpose to me. > They are equipped by local government mainly along with reside

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

Pre-processing isn't really an option for Kosmos, Maperitive, MapCSS/Halcyon (and judging by the number of rendering tags it spawns) Osmarender. Rendering is not something that only the gods do, there are tools arriving that will make it a lot lot easier to render. When these people render, they w

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making use of the data? On 7/27/10, Richard Mann wrote: > Pre-processing isn't really an option for Kosmos, Maperitive, > MapCSS/Halcyon (and judging by the number of rendering tags it spawns) > Osmarender. > > Rendering is not somethi

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote: Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making use of the data? Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in the first place? You cannot tell from our data model whether a bridge supports two ways or

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27 July 2010 20:27, David Earl wrote: > Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in > the first place? So this is another case of the current API limiting things? I'd love to be able to micromap lanes, not just ways, which might fix the problem of parallel ways

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27/07/2010 11:51, John Smith wrote: On 27 July 2010 20:27, David Earl wrote: Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in the first place? So this is another case of the current API limiting things? I'd love to be able to micromap lanes, not just ways, which

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote: ... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job and promote it, it might catch on... which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] would help us. David [1] http://www.frankieandshadow.com/sotm10/ ___

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27 July 2010 21:05, David Earl wrote: > You could invent a tagging scheme that would let you model lanes. You could, > for example, create a way tagged > highway=lane > or > lane=1 [2, 3, ...] > or some such - certainly needs some thought - maybe qualified with who can > use it (access=psv ?)

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27 July 2010 21:27, David Earl wrote: > On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote: >> >> ... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job >> and >> promote it, it might catch on... > > which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] would help us. How would that

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27/07/2010 12:30, John Smith wrote: On 27 July 2010 21:27, David Earl wrote: On 27/07/2010 12:05, David Earl wrote: ... You don't need anyone's permission to do this. If you do a good job and promote it, it might catch on... which is one of the key reasons why I think Tag Central [1] wou

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:12 AM, John Smith wrote: >> How about a fire extinguisher[1]? > I don't think this is a good idea, as they are 2 completely different > things... > t... but I'd > tag them separately... +1 -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com __

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged differently. While both are used for putting out fires, fire extinguishers (a) are limited to use on smaller fires, and (b) are useful by themselves, whereas you need a suitable hose in order to use a fire hydrant )and so are of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding the > necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the fire in > question. While it may be useful to tag these things on OSM, I don't think anyone could

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 27/07/2010 13:51, John Smith wrote: On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge wrote: Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding the necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the fire in question. While it may be useful to tag these things

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 27 July 2010 13:51, John Smith wrote: > On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding > the necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the > fire in question. > > While it may be useful to tag

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

2010/7/27 John Smith : > On 27 July 2010 22:33, John F. Eldredge wrote: >> Using the same tag for both could cost lives, by making delays in finding >> the necessary equipment (fire hydrant or fire extinguisher) to fight the >> fire in question. > > While it may be useful to tag these things on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 27 July 2010 23:05, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > Why not? As any other map, it has to be taken with piece of salt Typical CYA legal stuff, that is unless you want to be personally liable for mistakes you make which cost someone their life... ___ Taggi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl wrote: > Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,... I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to do something with the data that turned out to be false... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@open

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:27 AM, David Earl wrote: > You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a > relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriageway or just > parallel roads. What's the difference? Just whether or not they have the same name? __

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:29 AM, John Smith wrote: > I'd love nothing more than to be able to widen the current ways at > nodes to the width of roads seen from aerial imagery and then be able > to twiddle about with lanes and line them up with actual road markings > etc and being able to tag lanes

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On 27/07/2010 15:58, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:27 AM, David Earl wrote: You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriageway or just parallel roads. What's the difference? Just whether or no

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

2010/7/27 David Earl : > On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote: >> >> Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making >> use of the data? > > Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in > the first place? > > You cannot tell from our data model wh

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM, David Earl wrote: > On 27/07/2010 15:58, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:27 AM, David Earl >>  wrote: >>> >>> You cannot tell from our model, without additional information such as a >>> relation, whether two parallel ways are part of a dual carriag

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

2010/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/7/27 David Earl : >> On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote: >>> >>> Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making >>> use of the data? >> >> Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in >> the first place? >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

At 2010-07-27 06:18, John Smith wrote: On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl wrote: > Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,... I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to do something with the data that turned out to be false... Doesn't our use license include a hold-

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

Yes, but my point was that fire extinguishers are not interchangeable with fire hydrants. If you don't have a fire hose on hand, a fire hydrant won't be of any benefit to you, but a fire extinguisher might be of use. Also, if the fire has already grown beyond what can be put out with a fire ex

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

At 2010-07-27 11:41, John F. Eldredge wrote: Yes, but my point was that fire extinguishers are not interchangeable with fire hydrants. I did not quote, and was not arguing with, that. I agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently. At 2010-07-27 06:18, John Smith wrote

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Anthony wrote: > > That's not sufficient. You'd have to do some kind of heuristic test to > > see whether they were approximately parallel as well > > You said they were parallel. Twice in fact. but not all dual carriageways are parallel so the heuristics have to cover that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 7/27/10 8:33 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged differently. While both are used for putting out fires, fire extinguishers (a) are limited to use on smaller fires, and (b) are useful by themselves, whereas you need a suitable hos

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that the Japanese government provided fire extinguisher stations along some residential streets, and posted a link to a photograph: . Such a fire extinguisher station would be useful to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

Am 28.07.2010 00:40, schrieb Richard Welty: On 7/27/10 8:33 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged differently. While both are used for putting out fires, fire extinguishers (a) are limited to use on smaller fires, and (b) are useful by the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 7/27/10 6:57 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that the Japanese government provided fire extinguisher stations along some residential streets, and posted a link to a photograph:. Such a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

I also agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently. I'll try to write another wiki proposal page. (My first trial!) Then, which tag key should I use "emergency" or "amenity"? > On 7/27/10 6:57 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: >> S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 7/27/10 11:31 PM, S.Higashi wrote: I also agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently. I'll try to write another wiki proposal page. (My first trial!) Then, which tag key should I use "emergency" or "amenity"? personally, i like the idea of moving to emergency=* there

[Tagging] emergency=*

On 28 July 2010 13:51, Richard Welty wrote: > there is a whole suite of emergency related things that are not currently > handled, for example, in the US, EMS services are frequently housed > separately from fire departments and there's no tag codified for that > at present that i know of. People

Re: [Tagging] emergency=*

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, John Smith wrote: > In Australia the ambulance service is a completely different > organisation to fire and police and I can almost bet some would be > tagged amenity=ambulance or amenity=ambulance_station... That isn't to > say we should keep doing this if nothing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

I think there might be more types of "public fire control equipment"... I remember often seeing fire beaters (broomstick with flaps of rubber/leather) in a rack on moor and heathland prone to fires. Maybe amenity=fire_beater can be added to the proposal? Colin On 28/07/2010 02:41, Richard We