Do you mean you use plain polygons, and let data consumer derive relation
observing the parking space polygon is situated within the geo boundaries of an
amenity parking polygon ?
Or do you mean you use multi-polygon relations. [1]
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
sent from a phone
> On 15. Sep 2018, at 08:47, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> Graeme,
> Are aboriginal lands already in OSM as boundary relations? I believe there is
> some debate about whether to use boundary=protected_area or
> boundary=aboriginal_lands
it doesn’t matter, we don’t need b
sent from a phone
> On 15. Sep 2018, at 11:00, OSMDoudou
> <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Do you mean you use plain polygons, and let data consumer derive relation
> observing the parking space polygon is situated within the geo boundaries of
> an amenity parking p
On 2018-09-15 06:33, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I like the word "default"; it doesn't make a value judgement or have positive
> / negative connotations. And it sounds like it has to do with how the
> database should function, which is the right idea. The most common language
> used for names sho
Re: "A default should not require multiple values! It is the single value
to be used in the absence of an explicit value. If you think you need
multiple defaults, see my comment above about different contexts."
The idea is to allow a community to choose 2 languages to be displayed
together as the
On 2018-09-15 15:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Re: "A default should not require multiple values! It is the single value to
> be used in the absence of an explicit value. If you think you need multiple
> defaults, see my comment above about different contexts."
>
> The idea is to allow a commu
On Friday 14 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Christoph (@Imagico) has suggested tagging the official language
> information on administrative boundary relations:
> http://blog.imagico.de/you-name-it-on-representing-geographic-diversi
>ty-in-names/
A few remarks here regarding this:
*
HI folks,
What about a local language that is used on a small island (Schiermonnikoog) by
a minor number (15) people ?
Or a group of whistling guys living in the eastern European borders, that has
no words just sounds to communicate over long distances ?
Greetz
___
The size or type of language is not important, if it can be expressed in
the database with a recognizable reference code
If the language of Schiermonnikoog is used to name the hills, streams,
streets and shops on the island, then it could be the default language for
that place. This decision shoul
Re: "How about "name:language_order=fr;nl"? No confusion possible there,
whereas "name:language=fr;nl" would not specify the order, unless you
define the list of languages to be an ordered list, which AFAIK would be a
new concept to OSM."
In Brussels they would actually like to be able to display
2018-09-15 16:49 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :
> If the language of Schiermonnikoog is used to name the hills, streams,
> streets and shops on the island, then it could be the default language for
> that place.
>
the local language obviously will be used to name the surroundings, but it
might not
* the choice of suggesting tagging the language information on either
> the administrative boundary relations or the individual features but
> not on any other feature with a meaning beyond the feature itself was
> not arbitrary.
>
Are you objecting to the idea of tagging places as well as boundar
Joseph, I have to admit I am getting a bit lost as to what you are
trying to define with this proposal. Whatever tagging we end up with,
who is the target audience? What are the use cases? Is it an aid to
interpreting and pronouncing the contents of the "name" tag? Is it a
(strong) hint to mappers
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> 2018-09-15 16:49 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :
>
>> If the language of Schiermonnikoog is used to name the hills, streams,
>> streets and shops on the island, then it could be the default language for
>> that place.
>>
>
>
> the loc
On Saturday 15 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> * the choice of suggesting tagging the language information on either
>
> > the administrative boundary relations or the individual features
> > but not on any other feature with a meaning beyond the feature
> > itself was not arbitrary.
>
>
2018-09-15 18:22 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
> The
> most common way to do that is to prefix symbols with a special
> character. An alternative would be to enclose symbols in special
> characters (like braces, e.g. language_format={de} - {fr}).
>
please let us not use "complicated" character
On Saturday 15 September 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> please let us not use "complicated" characters, on some keyboards
> those aren't even indicated and you might need multifinger
> combinations to type them. If the key says "language format" I
> believe for the value we only have to defin
On 16/09/18 01:37, Colin Smale wrote:
Joseph, I have to admit I am getting a bit lost as to what you are
trying to define with this proposal. Whatever tagging we end up with,
who is the target audience? What are the use cases? Is it an aid to
interpreting and pronouncing the contents of the "
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 1:23 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > Are you objecting to the idea of tagging places as well as
> > boundaries? What about the protected area / aboriginal lands
> > boundaries?
>
>
>
>
> * I don't think any tagging concept where the language format tag of a
> feature other
Good idea, Paul.
The individual language communities should have the say on what code to
use, especially if there is no language code already used in OSM.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:47 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Colin, the theread title is now incorrect. I no longer think it is feasible
to map the boundaries of languages.
The proposal will just seek to document the format of default name=* tags.
This will also provide information about the language used within in a
particular administrative boundary, as a
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 9:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> If it's necessary, I'm willing to make a proposal to change aboriginal /
> native lands to an administrative boundary, without an admin_level
> Would that solve the problem?
>
>
Please don't suggest changing aboriginal lands tag. I'm ver
22 matches
Mail list logo
