Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

sent from a phone > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary > relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" borders can you give a definition for de jure? Which law applies? Che

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC - Pipe valves

On 26/11/18 11:04, François Lacombe wrote: Hi, I think the document is complete, with all expected keys and values for this step https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_proposal Let me know if any question remains unanswered. Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 01:12, Warin

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > > > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary > relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" > borders > > can you give a

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < sea...@gmail.com>: > can you give a definition for de jure? > >> Which law applies? >> > > Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would classify > these as borders where both countries are in agreement because of

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 26/11/18 20:32, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a

Re: [Tagging] How to map a sliding section of the Alaska Pipeline

Michael, Thanks for the suggestions. I'm on the road so can't reply in detail but I'll get back to you and the list before long. Dave On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:17 PM Michael Patrick wrote: > > ... There is a short section of the Trans-Alaska pipeline that crosses a > well-known fault line where

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

To me "agreed" seems better than "confirmed" (/and other possibilities could be "recognized" or "accepted"/) , but... do we really need to find an adjective qualifying such borders? I guess they represent the vast majority of boundaries, so we could just leave them alone and just qualify anomalo

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:44 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < > sea...@gmail.com>: > >> can you give a definition for de jure? >> >>> Which law applies? >>> >> >> Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would >> c

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 26/11/2018 09:49, Warin wrote: Where the two boundaries use the same way - simple - no problem. Where they differ? The choices are then available and could be left to the renders rather than OSM? Too simple? It depends what problem you're trying to solve.  If you're just trying to creat

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 26/11/2018 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" borders can you give a definition for de jure? Wh

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

The whole thing seems pretty shaky to me. Op ma 26 nov. 2018 om 11:46 schreef Andy Townsend : > On 26/11/2018 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar > wrote: > >> > >> We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary > relation

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC - Pipe valves

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:02:46PM +1100, Warin wrote: On 26/11/18 11:04, François Lacombe wrote: Hi, I think the document is complete, with all expected keys and values for this step https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_proposal Let me know if any question r

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 26/11/2018 11:24, Peter Elderson wrote: The whole thing seems pretty shaky to me. That's unfortunately as true in the physical world as it is in OSM. ... and Paul Norman's "osmborder" (mentioned by Noémie previously) is a huge start - you get a list of boundary segments classified accordi

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

In Argentina we discussed this a few years ago and decided to use artwork together with artwork_type = city_entrance https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19718 -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.htm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

25. Nov 2018 16:16 by doughem...@hotmail.com : > and I fail to see how much more > difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24" Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike boundary=aboriginal_lands

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Hi, On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> and I fail to see how much more >> difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24" > > Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike boundary=aboriginal_lands We generally *try* and make our data human-readabl

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie wrote: > Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? Or > should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and > instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24? >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC - Pipe valves

On 26/11/18 22:43, Xavier wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:02:46PM +1100, Warin wrote: On 26/11/18 11:04, François Lacombe wrote: Hi, I think the document is complete, with all expected keys and values for this step https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_propos

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie > wrote: > >> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? >> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and >> instead use boundary=protecte

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

Thank you, AgusQui. That sounds like a good option for an artistic entrance sign. Eg “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas.” Can you give a link to photos of some of these? But I don’t think artwork will work as a tag for simple overhead signs which don’t really qualify as artwork. Also, city_entrance

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national level. I've read the discussions on the Tagging and Talk lists, and have given the matter considerable thought (and experimented with different approaches) before formulating the proposal. I hope it offers a mechanism to show b

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie > wrote: > >> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? >> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and >> instead use boundary=protected

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

W dniu 27.11.2018 o 03:21, Johnparis pisze: > A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national > level. What is the link to this RFC? This one seems to be old and abandoned: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories -- "Excuse me, I have s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:31 AM Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 27.11.2018 o 03:21, Johnparis pisze: > > A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national > > level. > > > What is the link to this R

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

And here are links to the two main Talk threads that most recently raise this subject: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-November/081683.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-November/081723.html On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:28 AM Johnparis wrote: > > https://w