On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:55:44AM +0200, David Marchal wrote:
> Hello, there.
> I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated
> waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between
> them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which rel
> map the underground stream if possible.
As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't map
it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell that the
water only comes from one point and exits at another? If so, I can't either, as
no-one can be s
I would say that we need a new type of relation for that.
Jo
2015-09-09 17:25 GMT+02:00 David Marchal :
> > map the underground stream if possible.
>
> As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't
> map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.
On Wednesday 09 September 2015, David Marchal wrote:
>
> As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I
> can't map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link
> exclusive, i.e. tell that the water only comes from one point and
> exits at another? If so, I can't either,
> Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM -
> natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable.
Well, maybe I should let that down, then, or put the data in the description
field; this way, I won't mess with the OSM data, but they'll be there if
someone is
On 2014-12-29 15:27, Kotya Karapetyan
wrote :
Happy holidays and 2015 everyone!
> what is
needed here is some tag, saying "don't touch these
> coordinates,
they've been surveyed with high(est) accuracy
On 9 September 2015 21:46:54 GMT+01:00, "André Pirard"
wrote:
>There are various reasons for warning other mappers to be careful about
>their updates.
>I once temporarily overlaid two walking routes to show the effect of
>displaying two sorts of icons.
>Or I left in for a while drawing errors o
