Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

On 29/08/2019 15:52, Peter Elderson wrote: LS With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack)  the network value rcn for those node networks. This exception was copied with the claim of network=rwn for the walking node networks. Woul

Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables)

Dear Community, thank you for your comments. I would like to try to summarise the discussion so far: - one group went of into a discussion on the different forms of stables for pigs showing us the complexity of farm buildings and also the complexity of wording - commentators generally preferred

Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables)

building=livestock + livestock=* would be fine, especially if the building doesn't look specifically designed for one type of animal But for goats you might consider building=goat_barn or building=goat_shed, depending on how large and solidly it is constructed. In some climates goat's only need a

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 05:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: You could add flood_prone=yes to the car park tag but that will show the > whole car park as affected, whereas it's only the bit down this end that > has a problem. Would drawing a separate area & marking that as > flood_prone=yes w

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

For `flood_probability` to be useful and verifiable in some way, there should be a link to the source in the changeset, or perhaps also source: flood_probability= on the object. Such statistical features like "1% risk of flood per year" can't really be verified by individual mappers, since they ar

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 9/1/19 12:12 AM, Warin wrote: > > On 31/8/19 9:49 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> With highway=raceway, the most common tags are sport=motor, >> sport=motocross and sport=karting (and even some sport=rc_car for >> remote controlled model cars). These are specific types of motorsport, >> except f

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

Hi all, flood_prone=yes doesn't sound to be good semantics. Should we rewrite it as floodable=* with 3 or four big level of probability (or causes, or whatever) instead? Many people raised concerns about yes/no tags and the key name seem to contain two distinct information (floodable + probabilit

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

sent from a phone > On 1. Sep 2019, at 14:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > since they are based on > calculations of the floodplain geometry and historical observations of > floods over many decades indeed, and with a changing ecosystem (warming) statistical predictions will also be less rel

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 9/1/19 8:20 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 9/1/19 12:12 AM, Warin wrote: >> >> On 31/8/19 9:49 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >>> There's also some uses of >>> sport=speedway which is also unclear. >> >> Speedway is a oval dirt course that is usually used by cars and motorcycles. > > in some nati

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

On 1/9/19 10:31 pm, François Lacombe wrote: Hi all, flood_prone=yes doesn't sound to be good semantics. Think those are the words used on signs, so for English areas they make sense.. Should we rewrite it as floodable=* with 3 or four big level of probability (or causes, or whatever) ins

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 21:57, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'm fairly happy with flood_probability. There's something nagging at the > back of my > mind saying I ought to be unhappy with flood_probability, but it's not > telling me why. > How about something like: flood_potential=100y / 1% + depth=1.2

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

2 Sep 2019, 03:21 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 21:57, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> I'm fairly happy with flood_probability.  There's something nagging at the >> back of my >> mind saying I ought to be unhappy with fl