sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 15:37, martianfreeloader
> wrote:
>
> Do you have a suggestion how to fix this?
it is not broken, unless your proposal gets approved
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstre
sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 17:32, martianfreeloader
> wrote:
>
> Nobody commented during RFC and then everybody voted against; which is not
> nice. I was one of them.
particularly because the no vote didn’t offer any meaningful contribution, the
only reason given was a formali
sent from a phone
> On 12 Oct 2022, at 04:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> I would love to be able to move the vast majority of military= to
> historic=military, as they are no longer military installations.
>
> Yes, they certainly were, but they aren't any more.
are all military tags abo
sent from a phone
> On 12 Oct 2022, at 07:11, Evan Carroll wrote:
>
> Let's say you're in an industrial zone: do you tag as such
> (landuse=industrial) if half of the buildings have been converted to lofts?
I would see landuse=residential on the parcels where people live and
landuse=indus
>That could also be an option, but would that stop them rendering as current
>military features?
One could argue that, if they are no longer military featuers, they should not
be tagged as mililtary features. "historic=battlefield" does this and we are
probably not mapping any current / modern
>
> if there are industrial and residential buildings, they should not go into
> the same landuse.
>
This would make more sense then the current state of affairs as at least
then I could use the data for _something_ other than highlighting a map,
but alas that's not the case,
> The landuse tag is
*FOLLOW UP HYPOTHETICAL: *
I've been thinking about this a lot. I'm arguing here that,
* Landuse for developed land can be better automatically generated when
there isn't a named polygon.
* If automatically generated, we can achieve perfect accuracy or quantify
the margins of errors (the degree to
You seem to imply this is trivial, so feel free to build a prototype of
this to see how accurate it is (note that you will need to judge the
automated method against manual mapping, not the other way around). But
most areas are probably not mapped in enough detail yet for this to work.
For example,
On 11/10/22 23:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging
wrote:
How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?
The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and
definitely is not a decorative fou
On 11/10/22 22:38, Marc_marc wrote:
Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :
On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains"
that would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the
On 12/10/22 02:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Would it be possible to re-tag those refugee camps in an automated
edit? … I'm not even sure if they all still exist 12 years later.
It would not be possible, because we do not know if they still exist.
So you leave them with an incorrect tag?
I
There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities, residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 12/10/2022, 08:53 Martin Ko
I think that amenity=refugee_site & fixme=Review may be solution, it isn't
the ideal, but are better then leave "as is".
ср, 12 окт. 2022 г., 11:54 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 12/10/22 02:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to re-tag those refugee camps in an automate
On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, it is already there,
any definition we put in the wiki should reflect how the tags are
actually used. Approving a definition that would make current tagging an
“error” if it is completely introd
I left 3 fixmes, even tried one in French, just in case.
Anne
On 12/10/2022 10:51, Illia Marchenko wrote:
I think that amenity=refugee_site & fixme=Review may be solution, it
isn't the ideal, but are better then leave "as is".
ср, 12 окт. 2022 г., 11:54 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
On
In Germany I found at least one battlefield from the mid of the last
century which is tagged as historic=battlefield. Both in English and in
German the mid of the last century is included in that what is modern.
In Germany the modern period is often considered as a time span from the
beginning
I think that retagging confirmed to be existing refugee sites and
deleting clearly invalid data would be better than turning it into more
camouflaged
suspect data.
Oct 12, 2022, 11:59 by annekadis...@web.de:
>
> I left 3 fixmes, even tried one in French, just in case.
>
>
> Anne
>
> On 12/10/202
Oct 12, 2022, 11:59 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net:
>
>
> On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, it is already there, any
>> definition we put in the wiki should reflect how the tags are actually used.
>> Approving a definition
Le 12.10.22 à 11:51, Illia Marchenko a écrit :
fixme=Review
I dislike the idea to add fixme for stuff that doesnn't
require to be fixed but are old (and old items should be
rechecked from time to time)!
if someone want to express the survey date, let's use survey:date
if someone want to expres
Le 12.10.22 à 09:55, Peter Neale via Tagging a écrit :
historic is an attribute of an object that IS something else
what's "something else" is a historic=archaeological_site ?
and a historic=ruins ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or
On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
we do not need the historic key to be “approved”,
you don't need please do not speak for others,
you are not a spokesperson :) :)
Approving a definition that would make current tagging an “error”
approving that "historic=* is about "with
Evan Carroll writes:
> *FOLLOW UP HYPOTHETICAL: *
> I've been thinking about this a lot. I'm arguing here that,
>
> * Landuse for developed land can be better automatically generated when
> there isn't a named polygon.
> * If automatically generated, we can achieve perfect accuracy or quantify
>
Le 12.10.22 à 13:15, Sebastian Martin Dicke a écrit :
If there is an aircraft standing on an airstrip which has been
decommissioned yesterday (or thirty minutes ago), is it considered
properly to tag them as historic=aircraft?
I think it depends on the history of the object :
if the last Conc
On 11/10/2022 19:34, Evan Carroll wrote:
Some examples of these nameless sections are,
* w1101484647 by A_Prokopova_lyft
Not looked at all your examples, but i can't see a problem with your first.
It covers a large area of no just a building but car parking etc, and is
surround by landuse of
Le 11.10.22 à 20:48, Andy Townsend a écrit :
That was added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127101982 ,
I am surprised that no one is concerned about the compatibility
between its proprietary source and osm
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagg
Le 12.10.22 à 07:04, Evan Carroll a écrit :
is it better to have a computer make an objective statement and tell how
you accurately the landuse tag fits?
I read your algorithm a bit quickly but I don't see how a computer is
going to be able to tell where the boundary is between residential and
> I do not understand 'automatically generated'. Landuse is about the
primary human use of the land, and that's something that has to be
obeserved, or come from another dataset (as an import) where it was
observed.
This is true if the landuse conveys _additional_ information, like a
name. But for
> There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities,
> residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes
> because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.
Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning. I've
argued it would have _more_ value if
Le 12.10.22 à 17:39, Evan Carroll a écrit :
If you an area with 100% detached residences inside,
it's a residential. Right? Always. No exceptions,
no :)
if you have x number of detached residences occupied by offices,
it is not a landuse=residential
it follows from the detached residences in
>
> if you have x number of detached residences occupied by offices,
> it is not a landuse=residential
>
Then it's mistakenly tagged. You do not use `building=detached` for shops
and offices. Per the wiki,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
> A detached house is a free-st
Vào lúc 07:16 2022-10-12, Marc_marc đã viết:
approving that "historic=* is about "with historical significance"
doesn't change anything about already existing historic=value
without historical significance. existing tags always remain
unless someone has the courage to try to make progress on the
Evan Carroll writes:
>> Part of the issue is that landuse should more or less follow property
>> lines, unless there is some reason why not. a several-acre parcel with
>> a house and some trees is still landuse=residential on all of it, absent
>> farming or some side industrial business.
>
> Pr
Vào lúc 07:58 2022-10-12, Marc_marc đã viết:
Le 11.10.22 à 20:48, Andy Townsend a écrit :
That was added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127101982 ,
I am surprised that no one is concerned about the compatibility
between its proprietary source and osm
Lyft's policy lead has clari
Vào lúc 09:12 2022-10-12, Evan Carroll đã viết:
if you have x number of detached residences occupied by offices,
it is not a landuse=residential
Then it's mistakenly tagged. You do not use `building=detached` for
shops and offices. Per the wiki,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag
>
>
> The wiki is often incomplete or wrong.You are proposing a massive
> change in OSM, essentially to deprecated the concept of landuse, and I
> think very few people share that view.
>
I don't see it like that. Why do you? Nothing in the wiki on landuse
mentions property lines. That's not
>
> But in some places,
> mappers have been more rigorous about respecting each building's
> architectural origins.
This is all 100% new to me. Where is it documented that a "shop" in a
detached house should be mapped as a detached house, and not a shop? Where
is the notion of "architectural ori
>
> Verifiability is another matter
That's the matter I want to cover. I'm not concerned with the legal side of
it. My method is verifiability based on our data set. It can be proven and
can be quantified to internal consistency. How does their data set which
"consists of street-level imagery col
Vào lúc 10:56 2022-10-12, Evan Carroll đã viết:
But in some places,
mappers have been more rigorous about respecting each building's
architectural origins.
This is all 100% new to me. Where is it documented that a "shop" in a
detached house should be mapped as a detached house, an
Le 12.10.22 à 19:56, Evan Carroll a écrit :
Where is it documented that a "shop" in a detached house
should be mapped as a detached house, and not a shop?
you should have both :
the building
the user = the shop
it's documented in "one feature = one element" :)
Where is the notion of "archite
On 12/10/2022 18:56, Evan Carroll wrote:
But in some places,
mappers have been more rigorous about respecting each building's
architectural origins.
This is all 100% new to me. Where is it documented that a "shop" in a
detached house should be mapped as a detached house, and not
Oct 12, 2022, 19:56 by m...@evancarroll.com:
>> But in some places,
>> mappers have been more rigorous about respecting each building's
>> architectural origins.
>>
>
> This is all 100% new to me. Where is it documented that a "shop" in a
> detached house should be mapped as a detached house,
Oct 12, 2022, 16:23 by marc_m...@mailo.com:
> Le 12.10.22 à 13:15, Sebastian Martin Dicke a écrit :
>
>> If there is an aircraft standing on an airstrip which has been
>> decommissioned yesterday (or thirty minutes ago), is it considered properly
>> to tag them as historic=aircraft?
>>
>
> I th
Am 11.10.22 um 14:17 schrieb Marc_marc:
Hello,
I find that advices about multiple values have inaccuracies
between several pages :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_values
Properties can have a large number of possible values
my reading : key
Well, I have not seen the object in question, so I don't know what it is.
Perhaps it is a "barrier=wall; historic=yes"or an "abandonned:building=house;
historic=yes;"or abandonned:place=village; historic=yes"
all, possibly with "ruins=yes"
Regards,Peter(PeterPan99)
On Wednesday, 12 October 20
> You seem to imply this is trivial, so feel free to build a prototype of
this to see how accurate it is (note that you will need to judge the
automated method against manual mapping, not the other way around). But
most areas are probably not mapped in enough detail yet for this to work.
For exampl
sent from a phone
> On 10 Oct 2022, at 19:58, Davidoskky via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> tap=* and water_tap=* are currently being used to tag the presence of a water
> tap in a building.
>
> tap=* is used in Dominican Republic and the values used are "yes", "no" or
> the number of water taps in
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 17:42, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> are all military tags about current use by the military, or maybe they can
> also be used for military installations that aren’t used currently? Is a
> military base that is now abandoned still a military base? Or a bunker?What
> are th
47 matches
Mail list logo
