On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 23:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> No. We only create relations when the ref tag is not sufficient. We
> don't recommend that relations be created for roads otherwise, and
> anyone doing anything with the data should not expect relations to be
> there.
>
How would you d
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
>2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
>the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
>errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
>the ways - why?
He drove by, and saw a different re
Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
> Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
>> 2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
>> the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
>> errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
>> the ways - why?
>
>
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
it as I wrote in previous email. Remove the ways from the current
relation and add the correct ref tag
2012/7/31 Peter Wendorff :
> If you ever worked with mappers who do mapping in their spare time and are
> not digital natives, programmers or database geeks, you will have seen some
> who don't touch stuff as soon as it's too complex: Better keep the wrong
> data than to break something that of cou
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 09:31 AM, Paweł Paprota wrote:
No. We only create relations when the ref tag is not sufficient. We
don't recommend that relations be created for roads otherwise, and
anyone doing anything with the data should not expect relations to be
there.
How would you define "sufficient"
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and
Paweł Paprota wrote:
> The recommendation of using relations in this case is just to kick
> off the whole thing and define some base line for collaboration -
> not because I desperately am itching for fixing some technical
> design problem in OSM.
In theory there is certainly a logic to using re
Peter Wendorff wrote:
> Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
>> If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
>> ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
>> it as I wrote in previous email. Remove the ways from the current
>> relat
Am 31.07.2012 12:12, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
Peter Wendorff wrote:
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
it as I wrote in previous
Hello,
first of I'm sorry for a bit longer mail, but this is just another
example of what gets me worried about the future of OSM.
This thread is another one of those, where someone came to discuss a
specific problem and proposed a solution, a solution that changes a few
old things. I fear that i
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
> This is actually not an argument against any tagging proposal,
> but argument for improving relation handling in editors.
I don't think anyone's arguing with that.
But are you offering to do the coding? Because someone has to.
cheers
Richard
--
View this me
This thread has prompted me to look at the ferry routes around the UK,
and why only certain one are working.
The biggest problems I have found, and so far fixed, are not the ferry
routes themselves but the access within the ports. A lot of access roads
have been tagged to prohibit access (private
There are several ways to tag landcover with existing tags but if we where to
define a new tag for grass along the lines of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
I would think it could look something like this:
I like to take up the possibility to use a landcover-key for
Actually almost any proposal containing relations is criticised from
this perspective (relations being too complex/complicated for
mappers).
You say someone has to do the coding, I disagree. It has already been
done. JOSM with RelationToolbox plugin and, as Petr says, Merkaartor
are handling relati
At the same time there are gates and the access is usually not free
for everyone. So access=yes is in fact wrong in some cases. Something
like access=customers (passengers of the ferry) might be the middle
ground acceptable for both sides.
Not knowing how different routers use access I believe that
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Johan Jönsson wrote:
> There are several ways to tag landcover with existing tags but if we where to
> define a new tag for grass along the lines of
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
Why ? We have 1.066.000 "landuse=grass" and 756 "l
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:11 AM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" <
xific...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What worries me is that very often in threads like this, two "arguments"
> and their variations against the change come up.
> 1) You are a bad, because you try to impose your preferences on others.
>
no
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:41 PM, LM_1 wrote:
> Actually almost any proposal containing relations is criticised from
> this perspective (relations being too complex/complicated for
> mappers).
If you explain OSM to an average newcomer, not a geek or a s/w dev:
- yes, concept of relation is compli
When you search wiki for grass, you get landuse=grass. When you type
grass in JOSM's preset search box, you get landuse=grass. Potlatch
does not offer any direct way to tag grass. landuse=grass was probably
used before anyone thought about the difference between landuse and
landcover (in osm taggi
Am 31.07.2012 22:50, schrieb LM_1:
Not knowing how different routers use access I believe that ways
marked as access=customers should be routed with some sort of warning.
The same goes for access=private. Quite commonly the real final
destination would be in some limited access area and so router
Nobody suggests that all information is immediately transferred to
relations.But in this particular case where one real-world linear
objects is represented by many OSM primitives (better yet if these
primitives are common for more objects), relations seem to be the
clearly right way to go.
2012/7/
I think access=fee, or access=yes + fee=yes would be appropriate. How do
access=fee compare with access=customers in existing usage? (I tried to
look it up myself on tagwatch, but my phone didn't like it much)
On Jul 31, 2012 5:59 PM, "Georg Feddern" wrote:
> Am 31.07.2012 22:50, schrieb LM_1:
>
These are all good arguments but I think we should give more credit to
mappers. Sorry if I'm being boring but I will again come back to
OSMonitor reports that Polish community is now using for fixing roads -
since I started publishing the reports every day I am shocked by how
quickly people fix stu
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:22 -0400, David ``Smith'' wrote:
> I think access=fee, or access=yes + fee=yes would be appropriate. How
> do access=fee compare with access=customers in existing usage? (I
> tried to look it up myself on tagwatch, but my phone didn't like it
> much)
The entry barriers we
2012/7/31 LM_1 :
> When you search wiki for grass, you get landuse=grass. When you type
> grass in JOSM's preset search box, you get landuse=grass. Potlatch
> does not offer any direct way to tag grass. landuse=grass was probably
> used before anyone thought about the difference between landuse an
26 matches
Mail list logo
