On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM, André Riedel wrote:
>
>> As the creator of the proposal I do not like your proposed key/value
>> entrance=public_transport.
>> The tag should show the importance of an entrance and not what you
>> will find be
2011/10/14 Erik Johansson :
> If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
> use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
> mean.
You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as
entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a correspondending bui
Hi,
On 10/14/2011 01:00 PM, André Riedel wrote:
If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
mean.
You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as
entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a co
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy wrote:
>> Definitely. I think it would be good, wherever possible, to stick to
>> the idea of the value of a tag "subclassing" the key, so that
>> building=* indicates what kind of building,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be able
> to tag their entrances?
That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that
I haven't seen? I know that it would be possible to have a stati
Hi,
On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote:
Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be able
to tag their entrances?
That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that
I haven't seen?
Sorry, I forgot that a subway station does not always hav
On 10/14/2011 7:35 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tagging an above-ground subway station as a building is common practice.
For underground buildings, things are more difficult; we don't have an
established way of recording the fact that they are below the surface.
layer=-1 doesn't cut it as it is only
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be
>>> able
>>> to tag their entrances?
>>
>> That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, t
"André Riedel" wrote:
> 2011/10/14 Erik Johansson :
> > If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
> > use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
> > mean.
>
> You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as
> entrance=yes/main BUT onl
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> In the case of a subway station, this will mean that the station's area will
> need to underlay other mapped objects, and the mapper will need to map the
> access tunnels as well as the station proper.
Burrr! Openstreetmap is not mad
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, André Riedel wrote:
> 2011/10/14 Erik Johansson :
>> If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
>> use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you
>> mean.
>
> You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as
>
2011/10/14 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> On 10/14/2011 01:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you recommending to tag subway stations as buildings in order to be
>>> able
>>> to tag their entrances?
>>
>> That seems logical to me. Is there some problem with doing this, that
>> I haven't seen?
>
> So
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> What about covered=yes?
>
or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who
don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition.
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>
>> What about covered=yes?
>>
>
> or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who
> don't want to be disturbed by underground features during edition.
Well, we al
2011/10/14 John Sturdy :
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Pieren wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>>> What about covered=yes?
>> or underground=yes which could be a simple filter for all of us who
>> don't want to be disturbed by underground features duri
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>> Well, we already have location=underground established (see
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would
>> be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is
>> underground.
>
'established
On 10/14/2011 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The established way is covered, at
least it has a definition in the wiki and dates back to 2009 + it is
used more often (covered, usage: "C. denote an area such as an
underground parking lot, a covered reservoir/cistern or even such
things as an a
2011/10/14 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 10/14/2011 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Covered doesn't mean something is underground, just that it has a roof on
> top. For example a road passing through a building at ground level would be
> covered=yes.
covered doesn't necessarily mean that sth. is
2011/10/14 Pieren :
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>> Well, we already have location=underground established (see
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location) and I think it would
>>> be a pity to have more than one way of indicating that something is
>>>
>'established' is a big word. I'm surprised by the taginfo stats. I
>never used this tag myself and I don't remember if it was really
>discussed in the international lists. It is in the wiki since July.
Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=*
is, afaik, used on ways with
Left out a significant word by mistake:
>is, afaik, *mostly* used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes
The fire hydrant page now suggests fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc.,
but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of a
key.
--
Alv
__
2011/10/14 Kytömaa Lauri :
> Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=*
> is, afaik, used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes tagged
> amenity/emergency=fire_hydrant.
Yes but the proposal is now to extend its usage to everything under
ground. To be honest, I'm not aware
> The fire hydrant page now suggests fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc.,
> but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of a
> key.
As an old mapper, you should also avoid the key "location" since the
location is stored in the nodes lat/lon coordinates...
Pieren
Pieren wrote:
> > The fire hydrant page now suggests
> fire_hydrant:type=underground/wall etc.,
> > but many old mappers try to avoid type=* as a key - or as a part of
> a
> > key.
>
> As an old mapper, you should also avoid the key "location" since the
> location is stored in the nodes lat/lon
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Pieren wrote:
> 2011/10/14 Kytömaa Lauri :
>> Taginfo won't show the combinations at the moment, but location=*
>> is, afaik, used on ways with man_made=pipeline and nodes tagged
>> amenity/emergency=fire_hydrant.
>
> Yes but the proposal is now to extend its usage
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> Pieren wrote:
>
> > As an old mapper, you should also avoid the key "location" since the
> > location is stored in the nodes lat/lon coordinates...
>
> In the case of underground structures such as subway stations
> (Underground stations in UK par
26 matches
Mail list logo
