sent from a phone
> On 13. Sep 2019, at 21:13, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> Can we agree that these should all be removed, or replaced with
> suitable sub-tag, ASAP? the sub-tag might be, say:
>
> historic:wikidata=Q2961670
-1 to this kind of redundancy (or outsourcing of definition authority,
Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 15:20 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the
> building as a church even if it now functions as something else.
>
> Buildings don't h
Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <
kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>:
> In the part of the country where I live, the vernacular architecture
> is based on an idea of hardline Protestantism that rejected trappings.
> The older buildings tend to be symmetric boxes (albeit with
> more-o
Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both *real and
> current*"
>
>
> building!=yes = 65 221 930
>
this is actually an encouraging number, given that it is around 20% while
not so lon
Am Sa., 14. Sept. 2019 um 22:08 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 19:22, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>>
>> yes, or historic=road with historic:civilization=ancient_roman
>>
>> I’ve used both variants in the past but just had a second thought: is
>> this about roads that are sti
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:40, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> I see. Up to now, I only have mapped roads (or fragments) that were
> clearly original (or well arranged so that the layman would believe they
> were original), particularly with ancient paving (but maybe not in the
> original configura
15 Sep 2019, 20:20 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> I think you could
> perhaps use the abandoned: prefix where there is solid evidence of where a
> Roman road
> was but nothing is there now
>
OSM is not a place to map things that are gone and left no traces at that
location
> , but that would annoy s
sent from a phone
> On 14. Sep 2019, at 16:08, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> And type=site - but none of those three types of relation are widely
> supported by database users.
site is a mess, but the other two could be easily supported, they’re just not
sufficiently important (used) yet..
sent from a phone
> On 12. Sep 2019, at 02:44, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> I agree that "[motor]coach=" might have been clearer, but I'm ok with
> keeping "tourist_bus=*" since it may actually be easier to translate
> into most languages, and "coach=*" can also be ambiguous, since it
> used
What about long_distance_bus, if you don't like coach? motorbus doesn't
really convey much information. All buses we are talking about have a
motor. The only exception I can think of is this Italian pedibus, which
isn't really a bus at all. (Accompanied children who take the same
itinerary on a dai
10 matches
Mail list logo
