On Saturday 17 November 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> [...]
> If I cannot be given an answer to such a concrete problem, I will not
> accept that the reason is that I am too stupid or unskilled to
> understand your superior wisdom. [...]
To be clear i am not attempting to somehow proove something in
Hi,
On 11/17/18 01:51, Paul Allen wrote:
> I'd find that bad enough even had he been right in his interpretation.
> Given how he has explained
> it so far,
...
Jumping back in here after a while, and assuming that the "he" here is
talking about me, let me offer a bit of backstory and explain wh
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I do agree that while we should not "map for the renderer" it is good
> to have a central map that provides valuable feedback, and keeps
> mappers from, say, introducing random highway types by simply not
> rendering them. But I felt in this si
On 17/11/2018 11:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
... it is good to
have a central map that provides valuable feedback, and keeps mappers
from, say, introducing random highway types by simply not rendering
them.
I'd agree there, and unfortunately the OSM-Carto style isn't fit for
purpose as that. It
Hi Frederik (and, of course, everyone else). I appreciate your expanded
explanation on this.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> So, long story short, a couple of "my" maps suddenly started to show
> ugly dark-blue patches e.g. across the bay of Biscay, or the Gulf of
> Bo
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:52 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon?
>
According to the French, it should be EU;OTAN. :)
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin
The proposal specifies English—mi scuzi—прошу прощение—Entschuldigen Sie bitte
:-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 17, 2018, at 8:35 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:52 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon?
>
> According to th
On 2018-11-17 16:35, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:52 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>
>> Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon?
>
> According to the French, it should be EU;OTAN. :)
If you are going to pick nits, get it right... In French it is UE;OTAN
>)
Regarding labeling, the name must be attached to something. If there is no real
thing to attach the name to, a dummy node ore way or area is used. I don’t have
a principal preference for that.
A node can be placed precisely where you want the name to appear, then the
label appearance could be
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
[longish observation blaming OSM Carto for the fact that people
were coming to map bays as areas...]
> So, long story short, a couple of "my" maps suddenly started to show
> ugly dark-blue patches e.g. across the bay of Biscay, or the Gulf of
>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM Frederik Ramm
> wrote:
>
>> I do agree that while we should not "map for the renderer"
>>
>
> I would modify that a little. We shouldn't LIE for the renderer. Given
> two, equally valid (documented,
> accepte
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Another pet peeve of mine is a dislike of what I call "relation mania",
> where we have land boundaries that can easily be part of 20 different
> relations on different admin levels and other boundary types. It's bad
> enough on land, and mak
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> The discussion of indefinite objects falls in the same category in my
> mind. We shouldn't have to discard what is known or defined about an
> object because some other part of the object is unknown or
> indefinite.
As we say in German: Umgekehrt
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 1:45 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> As we say in German: Umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus.
We seem to be up against a cultural difference. English has proverbs like
'don't throw the baby out with the bath water,' and 'the perfect is the
enemy of the good.'
_
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > As we say in German: Umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus.
>
> We seem to be up against a cultural difference. English has proverbs
> like 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water,' and 'the perfect
> is the enemy of the good.'
It means more or l
Hi,
On 11/17/18 19:36, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> You're welcome to this particular opinion in your personal capacity and
> are free to argue the point as passionately as you care to.
Why, thank you ;)
> When you have your DWG hat on
I don't, and never had in this whole discussion.
> A minority of
>
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> This request also has nothing to do with relations that are large
> enough to break the tools. I'm confining my request here to features
> that are relatively small in extent - perhaps up to a few tens of km
> on a side.
Maybe with all disagreem
I've made a proposal to tag boat school quite similar other schools, e.g.
amenity=ski_school. I've tried to keep the tagging as small as possible since
schools can give more information on their own webpages. Please have a look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Boat_schoo
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 7:09 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> My argument was that if you can get away with using a single node for
> labelling, then you don't have to burden all those 1,400 coastline ways
> with one (or two or three) extra relation memberships and that would be
> preferable.
>
I agr
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:36 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> You point out that neither a new polygon that shares nodes with coastline
> ways nor a complex
> relationship are going to play nicely with the toolchain. Being a bear of
> little brain, and lazy to
> boot, my first thought would be a crude pol
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:30 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> It is sounding as if Frederik and Christoph are willing to tolerate
> limited experiments as long as we mostly don't damage the coastline,
>
Life would be so much easier if we had a sandbox.
> and keep our areas small enough not to break t
Despite the remaining problem of just how best to map the Iarge Alaskan bay
that started this conversation, it's been very interesting. For now, I'll
just let it remain as a node and hope that a better label rendering
solution for a water body as large as Cook Inlet comes along during my
lifetime.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 05:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Oh yes, certainly. Of course, in the concrete example at hand,
> re-tracing the whole boundary of the Gulf of Bothnia as a new way would
> have been worse (and impossible due to the 2000 node limit), and not
> even re-using the nodes would ha
W dniu 17.11.2018 o 12:27, Frederik Ramm pisze:
> But I felt in this situation, they had overstepped their mandate,
> *especially* because they were not reacting to something that people
> were doing, but actively creating a new feature ("hey, you can now have
> huge named bays") and at the same t
I have been following this discussion with interest since I would also like
to have bays and straits represented by some sort of polygon/area instead
of just nodes. However, I also agree that having overlapping relations
containing hundreds to thousands of natural=coastline ways would tax many
data
25 matches
Mail list logo
