Hi everyone,
Two months ago I suggested a way for tagging river size, from small to major.
It is a very simple proposal, offering just three tags — river=small, =big and
=major — and some numeric thresholds for these. Since it hadn't attracted many
comments, let's do a vote on that. I'm pretty
2017-10-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
> On Sunday 15 October 2017, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > I agree that tagging the entire lease area as landuse=industrial is
> > not correct. Part of the reason for posting is that I'm looking for
> > alternative ways to tag the large lease areas. Is th
2017-10-16 1:32 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :
> so perhaps just landuse=oil_lease, or more generally
> landuse=resource_extraction, as suggested by Greg.
>
the "problem" with the resource_extraction value is that it overlaps with
well established landuse values (e.g. quarry, not sure about saltpon
On Monday 16 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> I think we don't map individual land ownership or land use rights
> because of privacy concerns [...]
No, we don't map land ownership because it is usually not verifiable
which is partly due to privacy concerns from side of the cadastral
2017-10-16 14:05 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
> On Monday 16 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > I think we don't map individual land ownership or land use rights
> > because of privacy concerns [...]
>
> No, we don't map land ownership because it is usually not verifiable
> which is
Ilya,
As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking about
relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country, Ebro and
Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about absolute size
(compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are small rivers.
On the
On Monday 16 October 2017, José G Moya Y. wrote:
> Ilya,
> As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking
> about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country,
> Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about
> absolute size (compared with ri
What I try to say is that the original proposal tagged rivers according to
their relative importance in a country.
What's the criterium to know if a river is "major" inside a country? Is
it its occurrence in the school curriculum?
Iregua, which is a very small river (5 m width on its end) was i
Voting ended with 21 "no" and 28 "yes", and at least one that would change "no"
to "yes" if we redefine gallons.
Now we have to do decide what to do. Is this enough to delcare it approved?
Anyway some issues can be easily solved:
fire_hydrant:class=* can become fire_hydrant:awwa_class=*
gpm can
Hi Alberto,
Am 16.10.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Viking:
> Voting ended with 21 "no" and 28 "yes", and at least one that would change
> "no" to "yes" if we redefine gallons.
> Now we have to do decide what to do. Is this enough to delcare it approved?
A quote from the wiki (page Proposal_process#Appro
2017-10-16 19:28 GMT+02:00 Viking :
>
> We can't block this proposal any more. In a way or in another we need the
> new tags as soon as possible.
You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever you want. Just
removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones isn't. *)
As long as yo
My present though is that this is trying to convey at what zoom levels
these features should appear.
These 'importance' tags are starting to appear for all different kinds
of things - aerodromes being one.
So why not introduce a property tag (like width, height, capacity,
pressure) such as 'pr
Martin wrote: "You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever you
want. Just removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones isn't. *)"
+1
The entire voting process is non-binding. It's a referendum of the opinions
of the few people who read this list, take the trouble to analyze a
p
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Yes I can hear the 'tagging for the render' cry from here already. However
> this looks to be usefull information that mappers want to tag.
> So give them a way of doing it and let the mappers and renders chose to use
> it or
> landuse=industrial is simply
> factually wrong because most of the land is not actually used for
> industrial purposes.
I also agree. But how best to tag such areas then?
In terms of "mapping ownership", I don't think that bears on this
conversation any more than it does when tagging an area as
On 17-Oct-17 10:00 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Martin wrote: "You don't have to wait, you can use new tags whenever
you want. Just removing existing tags is complicated, adding new ones
isn't. *)"
+1
+1 - Indeed it is best to map a few of the new things so as to see how
it goes for you.
The e
On 10-Oct-17 02:24 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I'm in favor of airstrips, but I would make airstrip a subcategory of
runway. So tagging an airstrip as runway is not wrong if you don't
know any better.
Anyway, is there a way to know if a runway is an airstrip from aerial
photos? Is grass surface
These 'airstrips' are popular in Australia and Papua New Guinea too.
To me they are runways - they are there for planes to land and take off,
any 'services' might also be tagged.
It seams in New Zealand that these were originally tagged as aerodromes
but they were changed to airstrip to stop
On 17 October 2017 at 14:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---
> Slightly off topic - youtube video
> Landing at Ononge Papua New Guinea. Note the approach over the village,
> clearly showing;
> why there are no 'residential' roads and why there are so many showing up
19 matches
Mail list logo
