Re: [Tagging] Camps

On Wed May 6 23:21:41 2015 GMT+0100, David Bannon wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > > > A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort > > is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. > > Resort should

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

Hi, On 05/07/2015 06:35 AM, Ineiev wrote: >> "There multiple collaborative mapping services. Each of them is a direct >> rival to OpenStreetMap in terms of competing for contributors and map >> editing contributions. OpenStreetMap is better than any other competitor >> for one simple and very fund

Re: [Tagging] Camps

On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:12 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference. So that leaves us wonder > > what to call those UK Holiday Camps ? Leave it to the UK people I > > guess. > > > There are not many left, they were of their time. In the UK context > t

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

On 7 May 2015 at 07:30, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I would remove such a page from the wiki. > > It is more suitable as a publicity pamphlet. Any and all of our "publicity pamphlets" should also be on the wiki, for various reasons, including: * An archive for future reference, when the paper versi

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > There are quite a few collaborative mapping projects where people map > where they encounter which species of plants or animals in the wild. > (For example, a recent discussion on the German OSM forum was about a > software called MykIS used

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

I'm really not sure what this discussion is doing on tagging and have redirected follow ups to talk (it has in the matter of a few mails already gone substantially off-topic though). The page in question is actually a fork of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_Map_Maker which was written a

Re: [Tagging] Camps

To add to that, Thailand has many tourist facilities named "resort" but we would call them hotels. They are not for camping. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:11 AM, David Bannon wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:12 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > > OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference. So

[Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

Dear all, I would like to raise a discussion about possible options of how to tag/model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications. As this can get quite complex, I have put some illustrating figures on this discussion page in the OSM Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is confusion between monument and memorial ... suggest follow the > definitions under the OSM tag historic .. where > monument is large ... as in you can walk inside it, over it. > memorial is small .. say a plaque > > A

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

On 5/7/2015 11:57 AM, Stefan Hahmann wrote: My current favourite would be either solution 3 (which is easiest to implement in current routing engines) or solution 1 (for the sake of actual correct modeling). Maybe there are even more (better?) solutions? I tend to migrate toward solution 1 i

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:57 +0200, Stefan Hahmann wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to raise a discussion about possible options of how to > tag/model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing > applications. > > As this can get quite complex, I have put some illustrating figures

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

+1 for solution 1. It's the most future-safe, it's easiest to explain, and most likely not to be misunderstood by new mappers. A few extra nodes is a small price. Janko čet, 7. svi 2015. 18:49 Mike N je napisao: I tend to migrate toward solution 1 in urban environments. It takes addition

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

In Croatia historic=monument is often wrongly used to tag all types of sculptures. Only a dedicated icon for sculptures (tourism=artwork + artwork_type=sculpture) can fix that. Janko čet, 7. svi 2015. 18:05 Brad Neuhauser je napisao: > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.c

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

W dniu 07.05.2015 19:35, Janko Mihelić napisał(a): In Croatia historic=monument is often wrongly used to tag all types of sculptures. Only a dedicated icon for sculptures (tourism=artwork + artwork_type=sculpture) can fix that. The discussion about it can be found here: https://github.com/grav

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

Thanks for starting this conversation with a wiki document to aid in the discussion. One of the statement in the wiki "How to handle situations where the kerb is not identical on both sides of the sidewalk (however: probably a rare case. In this case the worst value could be tagged)?" doesn't fit

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

On 7 May 2015 at 19:02, Janko Mihelić wrote: > +1 for solution 1. It's the most future-safe, it's easiest to explain, and > most likely not to be misunderstood by new mappers. A few extra nodes is a > small price. +1 /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

On 05/07/2015 12:52 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: I still favour tagging the road with sidewalk tags, unless the sidewalk is physically separate from the road. Otherwise you are limited to crossing at defined points. Many people ARE limited to crossing at predefined points. A kerb IS a physical sep

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

On 05/07/2015 01:02 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: +1 for solution 1. It's the most future-safe, it's easiest to explain, and most likely not to be misunderstood by new mappers. A few extra nodes is a small price. I also prefer solution 1. When mapping the exact location of something on the ground

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

On 7 May 2015 at 16:57, Stefan Hahmann < stefan.hahm...@geog.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to raise a discussion about possible options of how to > tag/model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing > applications. > > As this can get quite complex, I have pu

Re: [Tagging] How to model sidewalks, crossings and kerbs with respect to routing applications?

On 7 May 2015 at 17:52, Philip Barnes wrote: > > I still favour tagging the road with sidewalk tags, unless the sidewalk > is physically separate from the road. Otherwise you are limited to > crossing at defined points. > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > That appears to be the correct way for routing pur

[Tagging] Tagging village sign

Hi all, Tips on tagging a village sign please. Village sign: an ornate sign located fairly central to the village - such as on the village green. -- Mike. @millomweb - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's pr