On 22 June 2011 16:14, Colin Smale wrote:
> That's for the renderer to sort out... We just need to make sure that the
> data makes/enables the distinctions that we do as humans. The renderer can
> always map multiple tags onto the same icon if it wants to. I think I would
> call this Garden Tools.
On 22/06/2011 09:00, Stephen Hope wrote:
On 22 June 2011 16:14, Colin Smale wrote:
That's for the renderer to sort out... We just need to make sure that the
data makes/enables the distinctions that we do as humans. The renderer can
always map multiple tags onto the same icon if it wants to. I t
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
>
> I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility,
> instead offering the "unknown" value.
>
>
I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely used in
OSM when you don't know the details (e.g. aerial imager
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
> On 22 June 2011 15:13, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I assumed he meant "only U-turn and forward" - ie no left or right
> turns. I have seen that restriction once at a t-junction, where the
> side street can enter the main road in either direction,
2011/6/22 Pieren :
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
>>
>> I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility,
>> instead offering the "unknown" value.
>>
>
> I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely used in
> OSM when you don't know the
2011-06-22 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2011/6/22 Pieren :
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
>>>
>>> I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility,
>>> instead offering the "unknown" value.
>>
>> I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very
> well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard
> to apply elsewhere. Perhaps the distinction of <3cm, =3cm, >3cm is
> very common somewhere - but
2011-06-22 Josh Doe:
> I think we're definitely going for functional. The original author used
> those height ranges, and I'm not sure if there's any value to mention
> something specific like 16cm, so I changed it to ~0cm for flush, ~3cm
> for lowered, and >3cm for raised. I've edited the proposal
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 2011-06-22 Josh Doe:
> > I think we're definitely going for functional. The original author used
> > those height ranges, and I'm not sure if there's any value to mention
> > something specific like 16cm, so I changed it to ~0cm for flush, ~3
Urban normal in the UK is 100-120mm. Raised (at eg bus stops) is about 160-200mm
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>>
>> 2011-06-22 Josh Doe:
>> > I think we're definitely going for functional. The original author used
>> > th
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:22:55 +0100, Josh Doe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Steve Bennett
wrote:
One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very
well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard
to apply elsewhere. Perhaps the distinction
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Robert Naylor wrote:
> I'm the original author. I was going to bring it up in tagging but I got
> behind in mapping collected data, and have been working more recently.
>
Ah, good to meet you Pobice, nice to know you're still around.
I originally started with f
what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values
like "yes", "raised", "normal" will probably not be very reliable or
stable as this might vary from country to country and also in
different cities/neighbourhoods.
cheers,
Martin
___
Ta
It seems that kerb=flush is saying that there is no kerb. kerb=no seems
more intuitive, and probably some people will use it no matter what the wiki
says, so why have flush at all?
"lowered" seems to mean "raised, but not very much". I imagine the intent
was "lowered compared to the otherwise ra
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values
> like "yes", "raised", "normal" will probably not be very reliable or
> stable as this might vary from country to country and also in
> different cities/neighbourhoods
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values
> like "yes", "raised", "normal" will probably not be very reliable or
> stable as this might vary from country to country and also in
> different cities/neighbourhood
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Seth Golub wrote:
> It seems that kerb=flush is saying that there is no kerb. kerb=no seems
> more intuitive, and probably some people will use it no matter what the wiki
> says, so why have flush at all?
>
Flush kerbs are important to note especially for the bl
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> > what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values
> > like "yes", "raised", "normal" will probably not be very reliable or
> > stable as this might vary fro
18 matches
Mail list logo
