> Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren :
>
> It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or
> "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag
> template is using the first version)
IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid a
> Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon :
>
> We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road
agreed, but would you say it has a "dirt surface"?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or
On 14/03/2014 08:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 13/mar/2014 um 19:06 schrieb Pieren :
It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or
"opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag
template is using the first version)
IMHO "summer_holiday" would b
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO "summer_holiday" would be preferable because we should avoid
abbreviations
... and people have already used the abbreviation "SH" for "School
Holidays" (which I'd argue also ought not to be abbreviated for the same
reason).
Cheers,
Andy
___
How do you define summer holidays? surely on its own it is not helpful.
It will require a database of when holidays are, based on location.
A business which serves multiple local authorities will straddle all those
areas holidays.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 14/03/2014 8:48
On 3/14/14 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon :
>>
>> We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road
>
>
> agreed, but would you say it has a "dirt surface"?
>
i certainly wouldn't. i use unpaved as the more generic
term, and dirt or gravel when i
On 2014-03-13 19:06, Pieren wrote :
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote:
>
> It's unclear if your proposal is "opening_hours=SH(summer holiday)" or
> "opening_hours=SH" (then you should correct the wiki because the tag
> template is using the first version)
>
> I guess
Dear André,
>>
>> the proposal is now open for voting.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing
> BTW, slightly off topic, I still have no clean solution for
> fr:covoiturage, which is translated to en:car_sharing by Nominatim.
Agree, car_sharing is not a good
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
>> Here's my take from an Englishman!
>>
>> While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all
>
> From another English person, I would say that "dirt" in British English
> is unders
Indeed- I have no idea what "summer holidays" are. I know what
"federal holidays" are, I know what some religious holidays are, but
"summer holidays" isn't something I'm familiar with.
- Serge
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
> How do you define summer holidays? surely on it
Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in "dirt
road?"
Earthen road?
Inquiring minds want to know.
J
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24A
Did you every think about "00:00-24:00; Fr 14:00-22:00 off"
I really do not get your problems as the syntax already allows a lot.
Still do not have any need for "open/closed" or closing_hours.
One good point about the discussion is that "appointment" is considered
valid.
cu fly
On 14.03.2014
Hello everyone,
This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my
understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to
specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong
to tag a whole river with layer=-1. The reason for that, as far as I
could figure, i
Summer Holidays are when schools close in the summer.
The issue I have is that they vary between local authorities, so seeing opening
times for summer holidays, I have to find out which local authority covers the
area and then visit their website to find the dates of the summer holidays.
Phil (
Re; tagging a (complete or longer segment of a) river with layer=-1
I don't understand why anyone would do this. That's it. Why?
Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or below
some other data. At least to my logic. And I don't seem to be the only one
with this thinking. A
"Layer= tag clearly (logically) implies that some data is above or
below some other data. At least to my logic."
>From this logic, layer=-1 means the object is >rendered< beneath
anything that has layer=0 (or, conversely, that anything with layer=0
is rendered on top of anything with layer=-1). It
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
> At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
> dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel=*"
> So, again : why tag things with with l
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:51:47AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my
> understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to
> specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong
> to tag
On 14.03.2014 16:36, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
>
>> At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
>> dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
>
> That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground is specified by "tunnel
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
>
> > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
> > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
>
> That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
> in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long.
> Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about
> the fact that the rivers may now collide with tunnels some hundreds of miles
> away.
In genera
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly wrote:
> Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer
> tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why
> not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everything else
> untouched ?
You don't see the p
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
> wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy
> you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered
> correctly.
It's not a question of laziness. Setting "layer=-1" to the waterway
instead of 10 bridges
On 14.03.2014 16:57, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, fly wrote:
>
>> Well, I do not get your problem, as bridge/tunnel always need a layer
>> tag and you already have to cut the ways to tag the bridge/tunnel, why
>> not simply add the layer to the bridge/tunnel and leave everythi
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:01:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > wiki says that every bridge should have a layer tag. If you are lazy
> > you can as well omit the layer altogether, it will be still rendered
> > correctly.
>
> It's not a question
Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a
range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually
do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river,
obviously.
I don't know why the wiki has a statement against it - it always see
I think that adding "layer" to every bridge instead of the river alone
is a wasteful and inefficient approach (takes more time and uses more
database space). IMHO these are much more objective arguments than
simply calling something you disagree with "laziness".
What's wrong with "removing layer=-
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:20:13PM +, Richard Mann wrote:
> Setting the river to layer=-1, and the bridge to layer=0 (or 1) avoids a
> range of rendering artefacts when roads have casings (which they usually
> do). Good practice is only applying that to a shortish section of river,
> obviously.
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 22:44 +0900, John Willis wrote:
> Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in
> "dirt road?"
>
> Earthen road?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
There is no usage of dirt road in the UK most, if not all, public roads
are hard surfaced (altho
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long.
> > Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about
> > the fact that the rivers may
I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
for that. Here's an example:
Given two ways that cross internally (excluding connections at
endpoints), and considering the "layer value" defined explicitly i
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
>
> > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with
> > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense
>
> That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground
Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value)
and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
rendering of detailed su
On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value)
> and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
> acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
> low quality (too imprecise) for applicatio
Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it
would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more
is specific such as "compacted", "earth", "sand" or "clay" is even
better). The editors h
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag.
> Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule
> for that.
validators can check for many errors but if you want to change
anything you
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit an layer
> and it was not accepted.
Was that for bridges being equal to lay
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
> >
> > There has been a proposal long ago for bridges to have implicit a
On 3/14/14 4:05 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
> more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it
> would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more
> is specific such as "compacted", "ear
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
> > >
> > > There has b
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> > > > >
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar
On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Fernando Trebien
wrote:
> Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
> more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance)
Not when the road is dirt as opposed to gravel.
I live on a gravel road in Japan. My aunt lived on a
How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
where I live in Brazil. (If you're curious:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=Porto+Alegre&ll=-30.228926,-51.066213&spn=0.013942,0.047979&t=m&hnear=Porto+Alegre,+Rio+Grande+do+Sul,+Brasil&z=15&layer=c&cbll=-30.228942,-51.066222&panoid=
44 matches
Mail list logo
