On 01.09.2010 08:32, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
so "flow_direction" ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the "enough
eyeballs" principle for findin
Hi.
Could be "invented" by non-English speakers. In German it's
Beachvolleyball as one word - other languages could be similar, don't know.
regards
Peter
On 01.09.2010 07:18, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I'm wondering if there's a reason this is beachvolleyball rather than
beach_volleyball. Most
On 01/09/2010 04:09, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means
something *without* another tag being added.
natural=cliff, barrier=retaining wall
junction=roundabout
--
FrViPofm
Hi all friends of good tagging,
The proposal is opened for one week now and I plan to put it to voting
phase at Tu, 7.9.2010. If you have any comments or ideas or think that
the proposal needs to be changed significantly, I'd like you to speak up
during the next week.
Peter
Am 24.08.2010 2
Am 01.09.2010 08:32, Nathan Edgars II:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
so "flow_direction" ?
How would you know if local waterways have the wrong direction without
specifically checking for the problem? OSM relies on the "enough
eyeballs" principle for finding majo
Hello list,
while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
(Karlsruhe schema)
I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a
relation more error-proof than addr:str
2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> Hello list,
> while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
> we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
> (Karlsruhe schema)
>
> I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a
> r
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> Did you check the "Water" view in the OSM inspector? It visualizes the
> direction already: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/
Only in Europe...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> 2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> > In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various
> > segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a
> > "house" role to include housenumbers there?
>
> I'm
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, David Paleino wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>
>> 2010/9/1 David Paleino :
>> > In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various
>> > segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What abou
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> >
> >> 2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> >> > In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together
> >> > (vari
2010/9/1 Nathan Edgars II :
> Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
Not much to group the segments of a street, but to associate the house
numbers to their street. Grouping the segments is a welcome
side-effect.
Ciao,
Simone
__
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, David Paleino wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
>
> I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
> "route", even if the way is split (becaus
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
> classifications, different tags, whatever).
See, for example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>
>> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
>> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
>> classifications, different tags, w
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >> Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
> >
> > I'm using that because I consider "Foo
On 9/1/10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> No, I know what you're grouping. It's the why that I'm unsure about.
> Where's the benefit in this relation?
it would be useful to manage common data (e.g. the name) in the
relation instead of having to update it in every part of the road
I'm not so sure abou
2010/9/1 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
>>> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
>>>
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> Hello list,
> while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
> we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
> (Karlsruhe schema)
>
> I've always used it to associate housenumbers t
2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
>
>> Hello list,
>> while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
>> we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
>> (Karlsruhe schema)
>>
>> I've always us
Sorry forgot to cc: tagging list
I'm working on a Master Tagging System spreadsheet, which will be
available in the next few weeks. (depending on my time-schedual)
It's great to see this top-usage, and i can cross-reference it with
Steve's chart http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/user:Stevage/tag
In data mercoledì 01 settembre 2010 12:08:42, David Paleino ha scritto:
> Ok, after some more discussion on #osm...@oftc , we kind-of-agreed that
> route=road isn't suitable for all cases, and there are places in the world
> where it's not suitable at all (because not all streets with the same name
Is the place where the Mapnik server is housed craft="tiler" in future?
+1 for the proposal from me.
Peter Wendorff
On 01.09.2010 09:37, Peter Körner wrote:
Hi all friends of good tagging,
The proposal is opened for one week now and I plan to put it to voting
phase at Tu, 7.9.2010. If you
On 01/09/2010 11:50, David Paleino wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But why does this "logical unit" need to be grouped in a relation? I
don't see any benefit to it.
The benefit is intrinsic in data organization.
and in object representation.
--
FrViP
On 01/09/2010 12:08, David Paleino wrote:
So we settled that Relation:street, as proposed in [0], would be more suitable,
both for grouping segments together (yes Simone and Nathan, just for the sake
of it, because I think it's convenient to keep them logically together with a
relation), _AND_ fo
Realy great, will help to cool down some discussions and very useful for
developers to see what is important/supported.
Matthias
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
This discussion already happened two weeks ago.
It started on the main list:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/053070.html
and went on the tag list:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-August/003679.html
Pieren
_
Hi.
I'm not sure wether it's the same issue international.
Normally I tag crossings with three nodes:
- node at the intersection of street and footway, tagged with
highway=crossing, crossing=unmarked|uncontrolled|traffic_signals|...
- nodes left and right of the crossing describing the curb, tag
2010/9/1 Peter Wendorff :
> Living streets are - at least in Germany, so I'm not sure if this question
> is specific for Germany or not -
IMHO it is. You should ask this on the german ML.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Vincent Pottier wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 04:09, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means
>>> something *without* another tag being added.
>>>
>>
The railway portion of the US TIGER import seems to have used the owner of
the railroad for the name= tag. (And the owners appear to have been
collected over the course of decades, so the current data doesn't reflect
a lot of mergers and splits, but that's a separate issue.)
As I come across thes
On 9/1/10 10:06 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
The railway portion of the US TIGER import seems to have used the owner of
the railroad for the name= tag. (And the owners appear to have been
collected over the course of decades, so the current data doesn't reflect
a lot of mergers and splits, but that's
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Johansson"
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Vincent Pottier
wrote:
On 01/09/2010 04:09, Anthony wrote:
On Tue,
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> On 31.08.2010 20:58, David Earl wrote:
>
> Just to throw something else into this discussion...
> highway=steps
> It doesn't (or at least, isn't documented as) have direction, but _could_
> have in the same way as rivers (direction of way i
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> Couldn't incline=up/incline=down work for waterways too?
>
> Then incline=down could be default, and incline=unknown could be added
> where the incline is unknown.
This is not always true, think about culverts:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:D%C3%BCker.jpg
http://www.ikt.
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> honestly, I can't figure out what that is or how it applies.
I don't know how you call this in English (but probably it is called
culvert), this is a closed tube for water which goes down on one side
of the obstacle (e.g. road), the horizontally under it and up on the
other s
2010/9/1 Elena of Valhalla :
> On 9/1/10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> No, I know what you're grouping. It's the why that I'm unsure about.
>> Where's the benefit in this relation?
>
> it would be useful to manage common data (e.g. the name) in the
> relation instead of having to update it in every
2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> But why does this "logical unit" need to be grouped in a relation? I
>> don't see any benefit to it.
>
> The benefit is intrinsic in data organization.
+1, e.g. it allows you to download and select the comple
2010/9/1 Anthony :
>> http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
>>
>> OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_siphon
>
> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a waterway, would it?
Why shouldn't it? Probably depends on the situation,
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>
>>> http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
>>>
>>> OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_siphon
>>
>> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a water
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>>
http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sipho
> Why shouldn't it? Probably depends on the situation, but if the occur
> on an object that we generally tag with waterway, it should be clear.
> This technique was already used in ancient Rome for special parts of
> aqueducts (where they had to bypass an obstacle). Aren't they a kind
> of culvert
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a waterway, would it?
>>
>> Why shouldn't it?
>
> Because it's not navigable, therefore it's not a waterway. And
> because the wiki says to use tunnel=culvert, not wat
On 09/01/2010 02:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>
>
>>> http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&search=d%C3%BCker
>>>
>>> OK, got it (but the article is not mainly fitting):
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_siphon
>>>
>> Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a w
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/1 Anthony :
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>
Ah, I see. But that wouldn't be tagged as a waterway, would it?
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it?
>>
>> Because it's not navigable, therefore it's not a
On 01/09/2010 20:24, Anthony wrote:
All the
examples of waterways on that wiki page are open.
Well; normally open -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.327&lon=-1.74192&zoom=14 is an
example of a bit of canal that isn't
In any case, as I said, there's no reason the default has to be the
If a body of water that is not navigable is not a waterway, does this mean that
any river that contains a waterfall is not a waterway? What about a stream or
river that has portions that are too shallow to be navigable, or where the
current is too rapid? What if it is navigable for only part o
2010/9/1 Anthony :
> examples of waterways on that wiki page are open. A culvert is more
> like man_made=pipeline, type=drain.
yes, but if it is part of a waterway, it would for consistencies sake
IMHO be better to keep it there. Above there was an example given
about a river that goes through a
On 01/09/2010 20:15, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I am not sure whether that would be classified as a type of culvert or
not. Do we have any civil engineers on the mailing list who could
answer that question?
I'm not a civil engineer* but that certainly comes within the range of
things that people
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 20:24, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> All the
>> examples of waterways on that wiki page are open.
>
> Well; normally open -
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.327&lon=-1.74192&zoom=14 is an example
> of a bit of canal that isn't
Can y
On 01/09/2010 20:53, Anthony wrote:
Can you pardon my laziness and tell me whether or not the water in
that part of the canal fills the entire tunnel.
It doesn't - there's a narrow footpath to the side (presumably where
boats were pulled along manually - the horses had to take the path over
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:09 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 20:53, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> Can you pardon my laziness and tell me whether or not the water in
>> that part of the canal fills the entire tunnel.
>
> It doesn't - there's a narrow footpath to the side (presumably where boats
> wer
My guess would be that barrier=ditch would be for a ditch that is dry the
majority of the time, and waterway=ditch would be for a ditch that is flooded
most of the time.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
>From :mailto:o...@inbox.org
Date :Wed Sep 01 15:42:5
On 01/09/2010 21:42, Anthony wrote:
(While looking at this I also noticed we have barrier=ditch and
waterway=ditch. That also sucks, unless there's some distinction
between the two.
Presumably that's different wiki editors arriving at the same feature
from different angles? I'd say there we
(I originally replied to the talk list, rather than to the tagging list.)
---Original Email---
Subject :RE: Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
>From :mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com
Date :Wed Sep 01 17:42:37 America/Chicago 2010
Barrier=ditch would be logical for a ditch that is intended to
55 matches
Mail list logo
