Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata

For me all path are equiped with some technical equipment are via ferrata, because with this tag you see in the map that in that point the path have some technical equipment. And because the first scale grade of via ferrata say "No equipment requaired". All map write cross in the point with techni

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

Am 28.09.2013 15:10, schrieb Christopher Hoess: Hey > I'm officially agnostic on that question! I know both "tunnel=culvert" > and "culvert=yes" are used much more frequently in OSM than > "bridge=culvert"; I think one of them predominates, but I don't know which. tunnel=yes; culvert=yes ? I wo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

2013/9/30 fly > tunnel=yes; culvert=yes ? > > I would go for tunnel=culvert. > how would you tag a culvert in a tunnel? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

Am 30.09.2013 15:51, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2013/9/30 fly > > > tunnel=yes; culvert=yes ? > > I would go for tunnel=culvert. man_made=pipeline; location=tunnel/underground and probably a tunnel relation. I am not sure about tunnel=* as it de

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

2013/9/30 fly > > man_made=pipeline; location=tunnel/underground and probably a tunnel > relation. IMHO a culvert is different from a pipeline as a pipeline is an end to end connection. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

Am 30.09.2013 16:12, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2013/9/30 fly > > > > man_made=pipeline; location=tunnel/underground and probably a tunnel > relation. > > > > IMHO a culvert is different from a pipeline as a pipeline is an end to > end connect

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata

Am 30.09.2013 10:37, schrieb bredy: > For me all path are equiped with some technical equipment are via ferrata, > because with this tag you see in the map that in that point the path have > some technical equipment. And because the first scale grade of via ferrata > say "No equipment requaired". >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

2013/9/30 fly > > OK, I get your point but you have to admit that most of the times we > have to deal with the standard situation and not with multi-use tunnels. > That's because multi-use tunnels are not so mapped in OSM. On the other hand, be sure we can encounter many cases of multi-use tunne

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same tunnel, but we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are double track railway tunnels. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 30/09/2013 15:42 François Lacombe wrote: 2013/9/30 fly OK, I get your point b

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

Am 30.09.2013 17:27, schrieb Philip Barnes: > On 30/09/2013 15:42 François Lacombe wrote: >> 2013/9/30 fly > >> >> OK, I get your point but you have to admit that most of the times we >> have to deal with the standard situation and not with multi-use tunnels. >> >> That's because multi-us

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

2013/9/30 Philip Barnes > And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same tunnel, but > we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are double track > railway tunnels. IMHO this is the same as for bridges: we don't have a general standard how to map a bridge or a tunne

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

Am 29.09.2013 16:27, schrieb bredy: > The automated_external_defibrillator proposal has now been stable for some > time. It > is therefore time to announce the voting on this proposal. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/automated_external_defibrillator >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

Am 30.09.2013 18:19, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2013/9/30 Philip Barnes mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> > > And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same > tunnel, but we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are > double track railway tunnels. > > IM

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

Ok fly, sorry for this sidetrack on the main thread ;) Nevertheless, +1 for separating structures (bridges, tunnel) from features (roads, rails, ...). But all this (tunnels, bridges, culverts) need a better support of layering and extra attributes like elevation beside lat & lon. *François Lacom

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:22 +0200, fly wrote: > Am 29.09.2013 16:27, schrieb bredy: > > The automated_external_defibrillator proposal has now been stable for some > > time. It > > is therefore time to announce the voting on this proposal. > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_featu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

+1 infact in italiy the abbreviation is DAE, only the symbol is same in all state. I'm not the writer of this proposal, but it's possible to change it now that the vote it start? -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-Voting-automated-external-defibril

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata

the via ferrata have different scale of difficult respect the sac_scale, but I'm not the writer of this proposal. I only want to proceed with it. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-via-ferrata-tp5776186p5779482.html Sent from the Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly wrote: > Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag > in OSM and it is often misleading. > We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for example mtb, bmx, hgv, psv, url, rcn. In this particular case, I think more people have familiarit

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

This proposal sounds unclear to me : It says the tag to use is currently under discussion, so what are we voting for ? Not to mention the abbreviation problem... *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/30 Matthijs Melissen > On 3

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

2013/9/30 Matthijs Melissen > In this particular case, I think more people have familiarity with the > abbreviation than with the full term, so I see here nothing wrong with > sticking to the abbreviation. -1 the fact that other tags haven't been chosen well or particularly understandable for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata

Am 30.09.2013 18:55, schrieb bredy: > the via ferrata have different scale of difficult respect the sac_scale, but > I'm not the writer of this proposal. I only want to proceed with it. You can use both if needed and I have no problem via_ferrata_scale=*. fly ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

On 09/30/2013 11:59 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly > wrote: Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag in OSM and it is often misleading. We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for examp

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:59 +0200, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly wrote: > Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the > way we tag > in OSM and it is often misleading. > > > We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for example

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

Just FYI, they are becoming more common in public places (offices, malls, airports, schools, etc) in the US. On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:59 +0200, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > > On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly wrote: > > Major problem

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

One year of no discussion and now that start the vote many problem. AED is actual in use in OSM then I don't see problem. If user don't like this can vote no to proposal. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-Voting-automated-external-defibrillator-tp5

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:57 -0700, bredy wrote: > One year of no discussion and now that start the vote many problem. AED is > actual in use in OSM then I don't see problem. > If user don't like this can vote no to proposal. > Its not about voting No, the proposal is a good one. Its about making i

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

2013/9/30 Philip Barnes > Its not about voting No, the proposal is a good one. Its about making it > understandable and not using an abbreviation that is not in popular > usage. > there are common guidelines for tagging that discourage abbreviations, for good reason. cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)

I'm a total newbie to OSM proposals and discussions like this one so let me apologize in advance for this off topic post. I'm still following along but I'm wondering how a person will ever see this sort of detail in a map. I confess I mostly work on OSM so I can get detailed and correct maps for u