Hi all
Voting on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnelwas
been started on 11.01.2011.
I was sent messages to this mailling list 15.12.2010 about start RFC and
11.01.2011 about start voting. Messages had to go through after being
moderated because
Canabis wrote:
> I didn't recieved notification of block of messages. I relied
> on the phrase in the auto answer: "Either the message will
> get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the
> moderator's decision."
Unfortunately the amount of spam postings and cross-postings fr
> Canabis wrote:
> >* I didn't recieved notification of block of messages. I relied
> *>* on the phrase in the auto answer: "Either the message will
> *>* get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the
> *>* moderator's decision."
> *
> Unfortunately the amount of spam postings and
I have corrected some typo's last week
I was pleased you used namespaces. That good.
I want to make a suggestion to configure this a little different.
* scuba_diving:filling=air;nitrox32;nitrox36;trimix;oxygen
In that way to are prepared to future developments and also you don't have
to cre
Hi,
Thanks Robert for your corrections and comments :)
personnaly i think that multiple value are harder to read, to compute
and to search it's the reason why i chose this...
now that you tell me this i'm bit confused not sure which one to choose...
what others are thinking?
Thanks for your fe
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong there -
> that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate.
>From a technical perspective you may be right, but practically
speaking, we should design tagging schemes wit
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong there -
>> that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate.
>
> From a technical perspective you may be right, b
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> > The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong
> > there - that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate.
>
> From a technical perspective you may be right, but practically speaking,
> we should design tagging
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On the other hand, what if one knows that there's a gate but not its
> purpose (for instance, when mapping drainage canals through swampy
> areas)?
Indeed. How to cater for both situations?
Steve
___
On 18 January 2011 09:18, Steve Bennett wrote:
> waterway=flood_gate
> flood_gate=sluice_gate
>
> ...is more usable for non-techie nerds than something like:
> waterway=flow_control
> flow_control=sluice_gate
> usage=flood_gate
So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks?
-1
__
On 18 January 2011 04:46, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> * scuba_diving:filling=air;nitrox32;nitrox36;trimix;oxygen
These things don't get handled properly, you are better of using
simple binary, eg:
dive_centre:fill:air=yes/no
dive_centre:fill:nitrox32=yes/no
dive_centre:fill:nitrox36=yes/no
dive_c
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, John Smith wrote:
> So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks?
The tagging system as a whole will never be entirely consistent, or
even operate on consistent principles. The best we can do is fix small
chunks at a time, and make those chunks as big as is pr
On 18 January 2011 16:13, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks?
>
> The tagging system as a whole will never be entirely consistent, or
> even operate on consistent principles. The best we can do is fix small
13 matches
Mail list logo
