On 12/11/18 18:31, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2018-11-11 21:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Just for the sake of asking a theoretical question that I know would
probably never appear in real life :-)
Would / could you also use the multi-letter codes as you show eg
NATO, WTO, SEATO?
& a mixture of th
Am So., 11. Nov. 2018 um 22:54 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
> I have to say I far prefer the editors in things like WordPress and
> Drupal. View source means HTML
> source and the visual editors seem (to me) better designed.
>
I agree that in an attempt to simplify html editing by introducing a ma
Am So., 11. Nov. 2018 um 12:17 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi :
> Hello everybody,
>
> I'm the one who, in the Italian mailing list, first brought out the issue
> about how to tag estimated heights (*in our context it was about trees
> height*).
>
> My first proposal has been to use a new sub-key in whi
Am So., 11. Nov. 2018 um 17:11 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :
> No, putting a source on an object is not "bad practice". If the source
> for all of the objects in a changeset is the same then of course it
> makes sense to use a changeset tag for the source rather than repeating
> the same object tag
Please, just forget about trees (/and the fact that they obviously grow.../):
trees have only been the "/casus belli/", the case for which we asked ourselves
how "Estimated values for height" (/the topic of this thread.../) should be
tagged.
The real question, I think, is if it is correct to ha
On 12/11/18 21:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Just add the height.
+1.
Some mappers are reluctant to change previous entries because they think
the previous mapper might object or have better data.
I sometimes include a comment about how rough my entry is, thinking that
someone can improve
On 12/11/18 21:23, Sergio Manzi wrote:
Please, just forget about trees (/and the fact that they obviously
grow.../): trees have only been the "/casus belli/", the case for
which we asked ourselves how "Estimated values for height" (/the topic
of this thread.../) should be tagged.
The real q
... because, as you correctly point out, comments are just a human-to-human
thing (/let's put AI aside for the moment.../), while a structured information
for accuracy could open the way to an automated method to "/update this
information only if the accuracy of this new measure is better than t
sent from a phone
> On 7. Nov 2018, at 02:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Maybe change the title a little bit: "office of an elected official"?
maybe this goes too far?
Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://
Hi,
Any thoughts about this ?
Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de
facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a
proposal about this tag ?
The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the
Foundation and are not really usable righ
it seems to me that there are 2 possible solutions
- put the disputed area in the type=boundary boundary+administrative
relationship of the 2 countries and put dispute=yes on the way(s) concerned.
- put the disputed area in neither of the two relationships.
this area 'll be a mp, and thus a relati
Not contrived at all in these days of tight budgets. I see no reason the
inverse would not work. I’ll add it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> On 2018-11-11 21:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>> Just for the sake of asking a theoretical question tha
I'm not a big fan of doing this.
There are only a very small number of countries, maybe none, that don't
have any sections of their borders that are disputed. While it can be
argued that moving away from our de facto area of control model allows
to reflect reality better, it also makes the borders
Yes, the UK embassies act on behalf of nationals of the British
Commonwealth if they have no representation in country. I'd not tag
that, either. They already know it :-)
On 11/12/2018 2:36 PM, Warin wrote:
> On 12/11/18 18:31, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-11-11 21:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wro
Even for a government bureaucrat like me it seems a bit wordy. :-)
On 11/12/2018 6:19 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote
>> On 7. Nov 2018, at 02:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>> Maybe change the title a little bit: "office of an elected official"?
> maybe this goes too far?
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
Actually, accuracy=* is used quite a few times by itself:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=accuracy
It is common to combine tokens in such a way in the key grammar of OSM.
When I map objects that may be worthy as a navigation aid, like a survey
point or a milestone, I usually specify a
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 07:59:41PM -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
> lanes=* should be the total number of lanes... if it's a one-lane road with
> two way traffic, I'd go with...
things change somewhat when using lanes:forward:conditional and
lanes:backward:conditional - these are not likely to sum up
On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard wrote:
Not contrived at all in these days of tight budgets. I see no reason
the inverse would not work. I’ll add it.
I think there are too many things in the proposal. Keep it simple. Yes
the 'extras' might sound nice but they add complexity and each one is a
On 2018-11-12 22:00, Warin wrote:
> On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard wrote:
>
>> Not contrived at all in these days of tight budgets. I see no reason the
>> inverse would not work. I'll add it.
>
> I think there are too many things in the proposal. Keep it simple. Yes the
> 'extras' might sou
sent from a phone
> On 12. Nov 2018, at 15:34, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> There are only a very small number of countries, maybe none, that don't
> have any sections of their borders that are disputed. While it can be
> argued that moving away from our de facto area of control model allows
> to re
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM Noémie Lehuby wrote:
> Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a *de facto*
> standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a proposal about
> this tag ?
>
> The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the Foundation
>
On 12. Nov 2018, at 15:34, Simon Poole wrote:
> a consistent set of border polygons
> (which is what people want in the end).
everybody agree with that, the question was : how ?
i didn't understand very well what you propose to achieve this goal
take one of the initial exemple.
the border IS inc
Warin, may I please remind you that in your message of 31 October you
were the mapper who expressed great concern about loss of data?
On 11/13/2018 2:37 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2018-11-12 22:00, Warin wrote:
>
>> On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard wrote:
>>> Not contrived at all in these days
What I am suggesting;
Stage 1 - Vote on office=diplomatic as a replacement for amenity=embassy
Once that is past
Stage 2 - vote on diplomatic=embassy/consulate/?
with embassy=embassy/high_commission/?
consulate=consulate/consulate_general/?
?=?/?
Stage 3 .. if you have further things.
That way
Minh Nguyen writes:
> (Crossposted to the talk-us and tagging lists.)
>
> Due to the ongoing Camp Fire in Northern California [1], the place POI
> for the town of Paradise got tagged with population=0 before the
> change was reverted. Following some discussion about this changeset in
> OSMUS Slac
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 10:58, marc marc wrote:
> everybody agree with that, the question was : how ?
Hopefully, the drawing works?
Not sure if this will make any sort of sense, but here goes!
[image: OSM dispute.jpg]
Countries A & B share a common border, stretching from Country C to the
Ocea
26 matches
Mail list logo
