NopMap wrote:
> Yes, you missed something.
I think you also miss lot of things.
Reply you got were mostly sarcastic and it's a vague discussion in an
obscur ML.
Launch a bot after receiving 3 confuse answers on a mailing list is not
a consensus.
Many users do not read this thread and discove
Throwing my hat in like a true masochist...
I have added perhaps 100 trees - urban/rural, in 'clusters' and on streets
where I would not say there is a cluster but where they are closer than 50m.
I am also interested in an import from my local council.
The wiki is clearly ambiguous and not follow
What's the preferred way of tagging a mast like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowridge_from_entrance_gate_200704270010.jpg
From memory I had thought it was man_made=mast, but I cant find any mention
of that on the wiki.
I see on the wiki there is a" man_made=tower" + "tower:type=comm
2010/9/10 NopMap :
> John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
> Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:
> Tagging ML:
> Anthony-6: "Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
> retagged?"
> M∡rtin Koppenhoe
2010/9/11 David Groom :
> What's the preferred way of tagging a mast like this
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowridge_from_entrance_gate_200704270010.jpg
>
> From memory I had thought it was man_made=mast, but I cant find any mention
> of that on the wiki.
>
> I see on the wiki there is a"
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:27 AM, David Groom wrote:
> What's the preferred way of tagging a mast like this
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowridge_from_entrance_gate_200704270010.jpg
>
> From memory I had thought it was man_made=mast, but I cant find any mention
> of that on the wiki.
>
> I
I agree with Pierre-Alain. Whether or not a particular tree is worth noting is
a subjective decision, and can be based upon its appearance, its location, what
notable events may have occurred near it, etc. Yes, being the only tree for
some distance can be a factor, but it isn't the only possib
2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:27 AM, David Groom wrote:
>> What's the preferred way of tagging a mast like this
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowridge_from_entrance_gate_200704270010.jpg
>>
>> From memory I had thought it was man_made=mast, but I cant find any
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II :
>> It's a guyed tower.
>
> a tower is "self-supporting", which might be read as contradictory to
> guys (unless you consider the guys being part of the tower itself).
Then explain the heavy use of "guyed t
Nop,
Thanks for adding tags to trees in my locality.
I assume from the fixme tag (fixme = set better denotation) on each
tree that you think I should be denoting something about the tree. I
added a type, a botanical name (name:botanical), I gathered the data
from a survey on the ground, oh ye
2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II :
>>> It's a guyed tower.
>>
>> a tower is "self-supporting", which might be read as contradictory to
>> guys (unless you consider the guys being part of the tower itself).
>
On 12 September 2010 01:39, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I would like to be able to tag something like this:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/b5/Stundturm_Schaessburg.JPG
> or this with parametrical values that allow for three-dimensional
> reconstruction as simple 3D-models:
> http://
On 9/11/10 12:06 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
You have proved how skilful you are at automated edits, so please, use
these powerful skills to remove the graffiti you have added to so many
objects across the world.
i think that he simultaneously ran this bot while announcing
that he was opting out
2010/9/11 John Smith :
> On 12 September 2010 01:39, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> I would like to be able to tag something like this:
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/b5/Stundturm_Schaessburg.JPG
>> or this with parametrical values that allow for three-dimensional
>> reconstructio
- Original Message -
From: "M∡rtin Koppenhoefer"
To: "Nathan Edgars II"
Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by
guywires
2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II :
On Sa
2010/9/11 David Groom :
> Personally I'd like to see a different top level tag to differentiate
> between more solid structural towers such as towers
> http://www.visitingdc.com/images/eiffel-tower-picture.jpg
> http://www.canadaphotoseries.com/files/canada/images/Toronto-CN-Tower.jpg
> http://medi
On 11 September 2010 06:28, Sean Horgan wrote:
> I'd like to get some feedback from the community on possible inclusion of
> "emergency shelter" in a "social facility" feature. I was discussing this
Is that the primary purpose?
If it is, wouldn't it be emergency=shelter?
__
I'm wondering what the difference is between the recent discussions
about trees and waterways. Here's the way things look to me:
*The wiki says something should be tagged a certain way: ("lone or
significant tree" for natural=tree | "direction of the way should be
downstream" for waterway=river, st
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
please note that english is not my current language.
> I'm wondering what the difference is between the recent discussions
> about trees and waterways. Here's the way things look to me:
> *The wiki says something should be tagged a certain way: ("lone or
> significant tre
On Saturday 11 September 2010 22:38:34 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> I'm wondering what the difference is between the recent discussions
> about trees and waterways. Here's the way things look to me:
> *The wiki says something should be tagged a certain way: ("lone or
> significant tree" for natural=tr
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> In the second case there is only a problem according to one person. The other
> people are not ignoring the problem.They are just smarter.
Oh fuck off.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> ... Perhaps have you a proposition. But for my part, it seems "natural"
> to use the natural flow of the way has the natural flow of the river.
It may be natural once one knows that you're supposed to represent the
direction. But I've
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:19:00 +
"John F. Eldredge" wrote:
> I agree with Pierre-Alain. Whether or not a particular tree is worth
> noting is a subjective decision, and can be based upon its
> appearance, its location, what notable events may have occurred near
> it, etc. Yes, being the only
- Original Message -
From: "M∡rtin Koppenhoefer"
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported
byguywires
2010/9/11 David Groom :
Personally I'd like to see a diffe
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:45:04 -0400
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange
> wrote:
> > ... Perhaps have you a proposition. But for my part, it seems
> > "natural" to use the natural flow of the way has the natural flow
> > of the river.
>
> It may be nat
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Edgars II"
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 9:38 PM
Subject: [Tagging] trees and waterways
I'm wondering what the difference is between the recent discussions
about trees and waterways. Here's t
Hi,
For the Canada canvec dataset, the map feature is available, and
direction of the way was not taken into account. So the tag
'oneway=yes' was not used as a preset.
However, for those who are interested in making the waterflow correct
(and render an arrow). In Canada we do have geobase Natio
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Edgars II"
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange
wrote:
... Perhaps have you a proposition
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:10 PM, David Groom wrote:
> I think the difference can be summed up as:
>
> With the tagging of trees the definition in the wiki was unclear; "lone or
> significant" can mean different things to different people.
>
> With the tagging of waterways the comment that "the way
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM, David Groom wrote:
> Alternatively they may not have realised they were
> supposed to map the waterway so its direction was the same as the river
> flow.
Almost certainly this. There's not even anything on the main waterway
page; you have to go to one of the subpa
Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
> It may be natural once one knows that you're supposed to represent the
> direction. But I've come across many waterways that were mapped
> without regard for the direction. Three examples,
Yes of course, but it can be fixed easily fixed.
I assume also there are lot of
31 matches
Mail list logo
