On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:38:48 -0400, James Mast wrote:
> I've created a proposal for an extension of the sub-tags (ref=* and
> exit_to=*) of highway=motorway_junction.
> This is to help people on tagging highway ramps that split farther down after
> they leave the main highway. It will also help
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 15:13:42 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> [..]
>
> What about using "association", and have subtags for the
> organisational form and targets (e.g. voluntary, paid membership,
> whatever).
Just my opinion, but "association" is longer to type and more error-prone. I
can alre
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:04:48 +0300, Reinier Battenberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sean Blaschke and myself also created a page for sceptic_tank. You dont want
> to fall into one, so mapping them seems like a good idea.
>
> Also, some of them can be emptied, which calls for mapping too.
>
> page is here
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:02:23 +0100, sabas88 wrote:
> Hi list,
> I want to suggest a topic of discussion not often considered: planning a
> more rational tagging system to be applied onto the existing data and for
> the future.
Stefano,
you know I fully support you. We started a similar thread on
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> Hi there,
Hello,
> the relation type page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation
>
> lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet.
>
> Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the related
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote:
> > > the relation type page:
> > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_rela
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:07:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route +
> route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be
> route=road)
Oh, and I see also type=address... meh :)
Seems like we
Hello list,
while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
(Karlsruhe schema)
I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a
relation more error-proof than addr:str
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> 2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> > In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various
> > segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a
> > "
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> >
> >> 2010/9/1 David Paleino :
> >> > In fact, we already have a
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a
> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different
> classifications, different tags, wha
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >> Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street?
> >
> > I
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> Hello list,
> while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc,
> we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all?
> (Karlsruhe schema)
>
> I've always used it to
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> Is this how to tag them?;
> name:English Name
> name:es:Español
>
> Or do I need to do this:
> name:English Name
> name:es
> es:Español
name=Name in English
name:es=Nombre en Español
David
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.d
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:41:22 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2010, at 8:28 AM, David Paleino wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> >
> >> Is this how to tag them?;
> >> name:English Name
> >> name:es:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:51:33 +0100,
char...@cferrero.net wrote:
> David Paleino (da...@debian.org) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote:
> >
> >> Is this how to tag them?;
> >> name:English Name
> >> name
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:26:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features%2FIce_cream&action=historysubmit&diff=532984&oldid=531944
> This doesn't seem quite right.
27-18 + 1 abstain, seems an "approved" to me. Controversial, yes, but approved
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:14:19 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:48 AM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:26:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features%2FIce_crea
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 05:11:08 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:49 AM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > On a related note: me and some other people on #osm-it were thinking about
> > re-organizing the "food" tagging (take "food" as an ex
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:15:50 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:05 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> > In German I would use "Gastronomie" as main tag for those, but I'm not
> > sure if "gastronomy" would be the exact translation in English for
> > this. My dictionary suggests "cat
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:19:58 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/9/27 Elena of Valhalla
> :
> > of course, we still have the problem with the tag name, since
> > "food+drink" doesn't look quite right
>
> if is probably not "good English", but I think it's quite appealing:
> it is easily unde
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:08:56 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> [..]
> a restaurant produces the food (prepares it from raw or semi-worked
> material).
Then it's clearly craft=restaurant! :-D
"[..] A place producing or processing customized goods. [..] craft=* for small
production on demand an
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:36:18 +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> I am making a simple proposal of "roundabout=priority_to_right" to
> indicate a specific non-standard priority arrangement on some
> roundabouts occurring in some parts of mainland Europe.
Shouldn't this be better done with a proper rig
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:55:36 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> [..] (Btw.: it used to be a wiki, but unfortunately there was a
> technical hurdle introduced so I am no more able to add tags to these
> lists). Can someone add this please?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure
Can't yo
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:15:48 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> There's an abandoned tag for sidewalks along the side of the road that
> apparently has some use in the UK:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway
>
> http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Great_britain/En/tags.html
>
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:17:14 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Based on this thread, there seems to be general consensus that the
> term "sidewalk" is less linguistically ambiguous than footway.
I'd like to point out that not all footways are sidewalks.
Sidewalks/pavements/whatever_you_call_them a
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:53:39 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
> David,
> I like this proposal, it should work well for the areas I've been
> mapping. However I have been using the proposed sloped_curb=yes [1],
> though I haven't been happy with it. There's also the proposed
> kerb=lowered [2], which seems e
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:40:21 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > ...and I tried to make a unified proposal some time ago (which I have been
> > following for the few sidewalks I mapped). It has been written down with th
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the
> sidewalk proposal as per:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk
>
> We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there'
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:29:28 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
> > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the
> > sidewalk proposal as per:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:39:52 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> David, you expressed some interest in this last week, and Josh
> suggested that since you were so interested, you make the proposal,
And I will...
> but I didn't see anything,
...just not enough time right now (university exams -- se
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:24:55 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Josh Doe
> wrote:
> > Serge,
> > I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which
> > have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and
> > involves tagging the road
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:21:02 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, David Paleino
> wrote:
>
> > Since "my" proposal was the one most agreed on, why can't you just start
> > using the tags/way-of-mapping in my page? :)
>
&
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:47:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/3/21 David Paleino :
> > To tag a sidewalk:
> > highway=footway
> > footway=sidewalk
> >
> >> I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have
> >> highway=footway,
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:04:38 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> [..] and I feel David wants something else entirely and
> is suffering from a bit of NIH syndrome, [..]
While I thought at the proposal entirely (almost, credits also go to #osm-it
folks) on my own, I seem to have reached the same conc
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> [..]
Given I have better things to do tonight, such as studying for my exam on
Wednesday, I won't send any more mails to this thread. So please forgive me: I
don't even know if I'll have time to read the mails. I'll surely read them
be
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/3/21 David Paleino :
>
> >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway
> >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to
> >> look at the
Hello everybody,
as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
I tried to summarize what my ideas are, and why I don't believe that tagging
the main road is any good.
To summarize here: to tag a sidewalk:
*
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:12 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
> [..] Like I've said on the talk page, I believe this and the other sidewalk
> proposal can coexist, although I prefer your proposed scheme.
I think that too; however, I believe the other proposal could be useful for
"temporary tagging", much l
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:59:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:12 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
>
> > [..] Like I've said on the talk page, I believe this and the other sidewalk
> > proposal can coexist, although I prefer your proposed scheme.
>
>
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:10:36 +, Craig Wallace wrote:
> On 24/03/2011 20:15, David Paleino wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
> >
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
No need to CC me, thanks.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:00:34 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
> >
> > http://wiki.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:42:37 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 3/25/2011 4:37 AM, David Paleino wrote:
> > Routing, not rendering. We don't care about rendering, do you?
>
> We certainly care about rendering. What we perhaps shouldn't care about
> is how a sp
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:21:51 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> You're proposing a new relation type,
I'm not. I'm proposing to use associatedStreet, which is well-established. My
preference for "street" is another story. *Entirely*.
> a set of associated tags, etc. in support of the sidewalk data
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> David Paleino wrote:
> > Come on, it's like any other relation. If potlatch can't support *ANY*
> > kind of relation editing, it's not my fault. It's a bug. I don't use
> > Potl
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> David Paleino wrote:
> > Why, oh why, this seems so out-of-context to me?
> > I think I already gave a solution: if you want to do it simple, use
> > sidewalk=*.
> > If you want to add more details, f
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> [..]
> Anyone can map anything in Potlatch, or JOSM, or Merkaartor, or their own
> favourite editor, by creating the primitives manually, and adding tags,
> using the standard UI. Of course they can.
>
> Yet this isn't always a
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:07:12 +, SomeoneElse wrote:
> What I don't yet understand is the workflow associated with the
> "Sidewalk_as_separate_way" proposal. Through the window I can see a
> road which has a (currently unmapped) footpath/sidewalk along both sides
> for part of its length and
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:06:06 +0100, Jo wrote:
> We also need to add cycleways to associatedStreet relations then and bus
> stops and their platforms and parking lanes.
Why?
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.n
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:06:06 +0100, Jo wrote:
> We also need to add cycleways to associatedStreet relations then and bus
> stops and their platforms and parking lanes.
Ok, I understand it might make sense. A role "cycleway" for cycleways? But
that's out of scope for this proposal.
For bus stops/
Hello Ed,
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:26:22 -0400, Ed Hillsman wrote:
> The discussion of the sidewalk issue seems to have stopped. I added
> some comments in the discussion section of the wiki last week, but
> there have been no further comments there or here in nearly a week.
I saw your comments
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:49:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 4/3/2011 9:38 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> > * Ed Hillsman
> > [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]:
> >> Would it work to add a tag "associated_street" and then simply list the
> >> name of the street? For example, highway=footway,
> >> associated_s
Hello people,
since there have been no discussion in the last days, I believe the ideas are
clear enough about the proposal. If you have questions, please post them to the
proposal's talk page, I'll reply promptly (or will try to :)).
In any case, the voting is open:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.o
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:48:35 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
> I feel so confused... of course you aren't talking about mapping people ??
Why not? :)
Realtime worldwide people tracking using OSM.
(and now you all know what's the purpose of the subcutaneous chips implanted by
aliens)
Yay!
--
. ''
Hello everybody,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:10:34 +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> [..]
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
>
> As per the wiki guidelines, the voting period is 14 days. Starting today,
> ending Apr, 26.
The vo
55 matches
Mail list logo
