sent from a phone
> On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Both for exposed natural rock and steps/footways made of rock pieces?
rock „pieces“ would be tagged as „stone“ I guess?
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing
> rock „pieces“ would be tagged as „stone“ I guess?
Not so sure about that, then it would be surface=stones, (note the
plural) wouldn't it?
---
There is a huge discussion on the #tagging channel on OSM slack (85+
replies) where all those "rocky" surface are being discussed.
Here are some s
Eric,
I don't think the previous discussion is quite as inconclusive as your
evaluation.
While it is true that there is not widespread agreement on where the
natural=coatline ways should transect a river mouth or river estuary, there
is nearly universal agreement that marginal seas, including bays
You cannot point to other area that may, in fact, be improperly mapped as an
example when they are like that because locals have been shouted down for doing
it correctly. The fact that this keeps coming back up literally means that
there is not universal agreement that "marginal seas", whatever
Nov 21, 2020, 17:43 by o...@westnordost.de:
>> rock „pieces“ would be tagged as „stone“ I guess?
>>
>
> Not so sure about that, then it would be surface=stones, (note the plural)
> wouldn't it?
>
I am completely fine with both versions.
I created today https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:s
My understanding about this is that there is a difference between British
English usage and American usage - especially in the western USA.
The English seem to have an idea that "rock" is for mostly solid, immobile
"bedrock", while a "stone" is a mobile, separate piece of mineral which you
might p
Is there some value in surface=boardwalk tag?
It seems to be a duplicate of surface=wood.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 at 09:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Is there some value in surface=boardwalk tag?
>
> It seems to be a duplicate of surface=wood.
>
Fine distinction I know, but to me =wood would suggest a solid, unbroken
floor eg dance floor or corrid
Boardwalk isn't really a good surface value as boardwalks can be made up of
a variety of materials not only wood.
We do have bridge=boardwalk but that always feels award when
the boardwalk is only elevating 10cm off the ground.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 at 10:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging
> Alex noted that he found that the "lane" value might have a different
> meaning already. I'll look into that and come up with an alternative.
I did this now, I looked for in which situations ...
parking:lane:*:parallel = lane
parking:lane:*:parallel = on_lane
parking:lane:*:parallel = in_lane
Joseph,
It's true proposed tagging deprecates the current pump=* definition
according to rationale and wishes to use the pump word in a more
appropriate way.
However, it would be ok to define mechanical_driver=powered for situations
when mappers aren't able to determine a more precise value.
That
To me, boardwalk describes the design & appearance rather than the
surface construction: An elevated walkway.
Although I do admit that's mostly influenced by The Drifters song.
DaveF
On 21/11/2020 23:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Is there some value in surface=boardwalk tag?
It se
sent from a phone
> On 22. Nov 2020, at 02:32, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> It's true proposed tagging deprecates the current pump=* definition according
> to rationale and wishes to use the pump word in a more appropriate way.
this would deprecate around 20k pump values describing a pump ty
13 matches
Mail list logo
