Re: [Tagging] Map Features template

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM, John Packer wrote: > Some people like these templates because it seems they can make new tag > values appear in non-english pages by adding them in the english page. > But this new value appears in english, so in my opinion it kinda defeats the > purpose of the no

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > If you want to expand the meaning of this tag you would need a migration > strategy, > but I don't see it necessary. "landuse=religious" is consistent with > "commercial" > or "retail", where you can have different retail amenities or business

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 24.08.2014 22:50: >> Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 14:03, Dan S ha >> scritto: >> On the other hand, if you see an object tagged >> addr:housenumber=265-269 >> addr:interpolation=odd >> then we can be quite confident that the mapper intended you to >> interpret t

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

Eugene, I am not ignoring anything, I am arguing and listening. My "90%" were labelled as a guess in a discussion ("quite certainly"), the "1/3 of them have building tags" comes from taginfo. You give examples from 6 places where particular mappers use this style, this is also not a statistic. I

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 10:47, Pieren ha scritto: > > Also I remember the time > we always said that landuse is intended for small scale mapping, not a > parcel scale. I have never seen it like that. Where there is a significantly different use of the land, also on one parcel or su

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 10:54, Tom Pfeifer > ha scritto: > > If you have knowledge how the act of worshipping in a Buddhist temple > differs from a Christian church or Jewish synagogue, in particular in > being focussed on a particular building vs. practised in a more spatial > manne

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

2014-08-27 11:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer > > We've always said that generalizing a detailed mapping in an automatic way > is possible > It is possible but sometimes it is really complicated. BTW, I frequently map really small areas with their own landuses. __

Re: [Tagging] Map Features template

> > The purpose of such templates was to have the same list in all > languages. If someone introduces a new entry, it's spread in all local > pages. It's probably not translated immediately but it is by far much > better to see it in English than to have to maintain manually > separated pages/table

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-27 12:05: I'd like to bring the sacred area in (speaking about Christian religion here). In Italy we are using place of worship on the whole sacred area where known (I.e. Not only on the building). For practical reasons a lot of amenity placeofworships ar

Re: [Tagging] Map Features template

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:36:04PM -0300, John Packer wrote: > I'm not sure that's the right mailing list for talking about this, but it's > probably the closest > > Am I the only one that dislikes the "Map Features" templates on the wiki? > (example: [1]) > > I think they make it harder to edit

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On 07/08/2014 16:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: "culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding), (on the other part of this) I'd agree that "culvert" isn't a type of bridge. I think that some of the confusion in OSM came from someone finding an old American drawing of a car dri

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 13:54, Mateusz Konieczny > ha scritto: > > 2014-08-27 11:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer >> >> We've always said that generalizing a detailed mapping in an automatic way >> is possible > > It is possible but sometimes it is really complicated. BTW, I freq

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 15:26, Tom Pfeifer > ha scritto: > > How would you treat graveyards, as sacred and places of worship, > or not? What about the parking on the property? Usually graveyards (typically ancient burial places associated to a church and directly adjacent) will be

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

On 2014-08-26 12:16, Pieren wrote : On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 PM, André Pirard wrote: Yes, this sentence is misunderstood, and by many repliers apparently.

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

On 2014-08-26 13:38, Christian Quest wrote : > André I think you missed a major thing about cartography (and > topography). > > As OSM contributors, we're not cartographers but topographers... we > record topographic data. > > Then cartographers use that data, make choices to have some objets of >

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

Tom, I think you are interpreting the tag amenity=place_of_worship too literally. In my opinion, this is not intended to only apply to the specific place or building where the actual worshiping happens. For one thing, we tag footways as highway=footway but footways are not highways. And we tag cit

Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam

On 27.08.2014 04:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Agreed, but the tag prefix in discussion here is "contact", to be used for > channels/means to contact the feature, while a webcam is working the other > way round, it communicates from the feature to the audience. I agree that "contact" does not

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

Am 27.08.2014 um 17:49 schrieb André Pirard: > All the replies in this thread showed absolutely no desire to join the > fight and make suggestions, just to disparage the idea. I don't agree here. But the way you proposed for this fight is not a solution. It may be if what you call (and many see as

Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 18:17, Tobias Knerr ha > scritto: > > Then again, I'm not a fan of the contact prefix at all +1, me neither, I am not using it, but some mappers seem to do, otherwise we already would have deprecated it ;-) cheers, Martin _

Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam

On 26 August 2014 18:44, Andreas Neumann wrote: > there exists a tagging for webcams in the > contact-namespace (contact:webcam=*) Is this a mis-named operator:contact= ? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

Hi, Thanks for your time, Peter, and for a message which I feel like the first to want to cooperate. However, I don't feel well how your variants fit with the scenario I am dealing with, namely: a mapper has a feature to tag he finds