On 03.09.2014 14:25, Zecke wrote:
> Currently in OSM we have two tags to describe some kind of slope that also
> get rendered in the mapnik chart and a couple of others:
> natural=cliff
> embankment (in the form man_made=embankment (feature) and embankment=yes
> (attribute))
>
> Is this categorisa
Creating all this vending machine stuff in the Wiki I wish that tag
would have been something like machinie or automat. That would make it a
lot easier. Then we wouldn't have the discussion over and over again
also with all those parcel services. I guess machinie is to confusing
and automat doe
> Il giorno 04/set/2014, alle ore 15:46, Andreas Goss ha
> scritto:
>
> Creating all this vending machine stuff in the Wiki I wish that tag would
> have been something like machinie or automat. That would make it a lot
> easier. Then we wouldn't have the discussion over and over again also w
Am 04.09.2014 15:55, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
This is only possible if the man made embankment is inside a larger natural
slope. So the embankment is not as notable a landscape component as compared
to freestanding embankments in the plains.
I'm dealing with spoil heaps. These are man_made bu
2014-09-04 15:55 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
> > There's the question whether "natural" is appropriate as there are also
> man
> > made steep slopes.
>
> I think that we do not need that kind of differenciation. There are also
> man
> made water areas and trees, and we are doing fine without ta
On 04.09.2014 16:46, Zecke wrote:
> I'm dealing with spoil heaps. These are man_made but that's not the problem
> here.
For spoil heaps, man_made=spoil_heap has been suggested. They have little in
common with embankments.
> A spoil heap is often partially
> limited by more or less steep slopes. I
On 04.09.2014 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > There's the question whether "natural" is appropriate as there are
> > also man made steep slopes.
>
> I think that we do not need that kind of differenciation. There are also
> man
> made water areas and trees, and we are doing
Am 04.09.2014 20:54, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
By the way, embankment=left/right won't work for spoil heaps, because
they are not linear features.
Not totally correct. Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when
they are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part
of
On 04.09.2014 21:24, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 04.09.2014 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I agree in so far as from one point of view we could have a tag that only
>> describes the shape without referring to natural or man_made (who or why
>> something is there). But I wouldn't recommend
On 04.09.2014 21:19, Zecke wrote:
> Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they
> are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the
> contour will be mapped as a line
This does not sound right. Spoil heaps are areas and should be mapped as
such, or abstracted to a
Am 04.09.2014 22:09, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
On 04.09.2014 21:19, Zecke wrote:
Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they
are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the
contour will be mapped as a line
This does not sound right. Spoil heaps are areas and
I suppose one could map both the spoil heap as a whole, as an area, and also
the crest, as a line. The crest would be useful as a landmark, from a distance.
The footprint of the spoil heap would be useful as a landmark, at close range.
My impression is that no one would likely try climbing the s
12 matches
Mail list logo
