On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong with using addr:place even on the address
> points that do have street name.
It's like "addr:country". It's not wrong to duplicate the information
if someone add it in 10 or 100 addresses. It becomes a
Dne 19.3.2014 11:08, Pieren napsal(a):
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything wrong with using addr:place even on the address
>> points that do have street name.
>
> It's like "addr:country". It's not wrong to duplicate the information
>
> Am 18/mar/2014 um 23:36 schrieb David Bannon :
>
> Please lets think of tracktype= as -
>
> 1. OK, its unsealed but smooth, level, well looked after.
grade1 is mostly asphalted, (and comprises also heavily
compacted hardcore with similar characteristics).
Please note that the track type sc
> Am 19/mar/2014 um 11:08 schrieb Pieren :
>
> It's like "addr:country".
-1
> It's not wrong to duplicate the information
> if someone add it in 10 or 100 addresses. It becomes a problem when a
> script (or import) is adding the same "addr:country" or "addr:place"
> to millions of addresses
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> do not confuse addr:place with addr:city
Unfortunately, the "addr:place" definition is too vague in the wiki
and most of the time overused (even when the boundary polygon exists,
e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2198380838 or
ht
Am 19/mar/2014 um 14:03 schrieb Pieren :
>> do not confuse addr:place with addr:city
>
> Unfortunately, the "addr:place" definition is too vague in the wiki
> and most of the time overused (even when the boundary polygon exists,
> e.g
you are continuing to ignore what was said in this thread
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:30 AM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" wrote:
> Oh, here we go again... You are wrong. It's nothing like addr:country,
> it's not duplicating any information, and the polygon approach is not
> applicable.
>
> I would really appreciate, if people would read on the local terms u
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:41 AM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" wrote:
> This discussion can be constructive, if and only if the participants
> understand at least the basic terms that are used in CR subdivision and
> address system. If you (or anyone else) is not clear on something, then
> ask a spec
Dne 19.3.2014 15:51, Serge Wroclawski napsal(a):
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:30 AM, "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, here we go again... You are wrong. It's nothing like addr:country,
>> it's not duplicating any information, and the polygon approach is not
>> applicable.
>>
>> I would
This proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:route%3Dpiste
... is a bit behind route=ski in taginfo.
The goal is to extend route relations to other winter sports along with
a piste:type=whatever tag.
While route=ski is straightforward, this extension is good for
snows
Thanks Martin.
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 13:15 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> grade1 is mostly asphalted, (and comprises also heavily
> compacted hardcore with similar characteristics).
You are of course quite right. I was paraphrasing the end user. Sorry.
> Please note that the track type scal
I think you mean that we should redefine the meaning of the values of
the tracktype tag. I'm wondering if that's good because the text has
been essentially stable since december 2011, when the article got its
head paragraphs. Descriptions of tag values have been essentially the
same since 2008, whe
I think that adding the idea of "risk of degradation" is very
enriching to the article.
Just to test the concept: if tracktype means durability/endurance more
than firmness, what tracktype would you (and others) expect to see
alongside with surface=stone?
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Dave Swa
I just read (almost) the entire thread about smoothness Fernando mentioned
here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Accepted_features/Smoothness#Renaming_current_valuesand
I must say, it looks like an uphill battle to make substantial changes
in any definition of a road's usability for routing
Is it reasonable to expect that well tagged road contains all access
tags necessary to check whatever it is accessible?
In other words - is it OK to tag area like proving ground with
access=no, without tagging roads on this area with proper access tags?
Should cases like this be reported by val
Mapping has a conflict: we want to be precise enough to make a useful
map (more tags), but we also want to map quickly (less tags).
Describing the surface probably is one of those problems that lies
near the middle of these opposing goals, and finding the perfect
balance is the challenge. For now,
16 matches
Mail list logo
