On 10/03/2010 04:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
> You'd also need information about how the average speed was measured,
> when it was measured, how accurate it can be expected to be. When
> different people come up with different measurements using different
> methods, you have to have a method to choose
On 10/03/2010 05:04 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Maybe it's just because of where I live, but I don't see how it would be.
Well, where I live (Germany) we have a legal limit of 100 kph on roads
outside of cities, motorways excluded. This legally applies even to
small roads if there is no sign indicating
On 10/06/2010 06:05 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> This came into the limelight in NL following a discussion about
> single-carriageway (main) roads with a double white line (i.e. "do not
> cross", effectively "no overtaking") and whether they should be modelled
> as a dual carriageway as you are suppos
On 10/07/2010 10:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A
> landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards,
That's why it is not landuse=house. A landuse=residential contains all
things that belong to a typical residential area, like b
On 08.10.2010 00:05, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> still it isn't at all a forest. landuse forest is a documented tag for
> forests and forests means an area with trees.
> all the other areas you will find in a national forest have well defined
> tags natural/landuse=wood,glacier,heat,meadow,shrub
On 08.10.2010 07:17, Stephen Hope wrote:
> On 8 October 2010 03:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve
>> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and
>> "coverage".
>
>
> As long as it is made clear that not all l
On 07.10.2010 23:22, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
>> of border line, but the areas where trees grow as forest. So the
>> national park should be tagged as boundary=national_park or similiar.
> It's not a national park
On 10/20/2010 06:34 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> I suppose we could just tag all place markers with a
> city_dominance_score= tag... or we could just add a step in the
> rendering pipeline to calculate it automatically from various datasets
> and some rules.
I think we should have something in the OS
On 10/22/2010 06:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> It's now almost 3 years that I'm mapping and when I entered small
> informal (not planned or built) footpaths I was using cryptic tag
> combinations like highway=footway, informal=yes, width=0.3 (or
> highway=path), surface=ground. While that is
On 10/22/2010 06:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/10/22 John Smith :
>> Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for?
>
>
> No, in the case of path this is a common misconception, and in the
> case of track: where did you get this idea from?
This is not a misconception. The wiki
On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags
> for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and
> unmaintained "path".
If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's
worse its a low
On 10/22/2010 06:43 PM, SURLY_ru wrote:
> Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is
> "highway=footway".
The wiki and the actual usage say nothing about wether it was
intentionally built. Footway on the other hand is for designated
pedestrian ways, i.e. in many countries a blu
On 10/22/2010 09:49 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a
> track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t
> have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it
A track is not defined by being physically imposs
On 10/22/2010 09:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for
> four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.”
>
> That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion.
Then what do you think is the difference between "path
On 10/23/2010 02:04 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
> No, not that restrictive. When path was introduced, the equivalence
> was given inother direction: there are globally lots of ways tagged
> as footways and cycleways that have no signposts at all, some of
The wiki says: "highway cycleway For designat
On 10/23/2010 06:02 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
> Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
>> The wiki says:
>> The example photos there support this.
>
> And the other pages say otherwise.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway
On 10/23/2010 11:01 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel <mailto:r...@kleineisel.de>> wrote:
>
> Then what do you think is the difference between "path" and "track
> grade5"? I think only the width.
> Not &#
On 10/25/2010 10:29 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> the street you have to jump down the curb (some 15 cm curb). This is
> really not a path, IMHO
It is definitely a path, IMHO.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.
On 10/25/2010 10:29 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> For example, what would you tag this?
>
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vercelli,+Piedmont,+Italy&ll=45.314604,8.414012&spn=0.001633,0.004128&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.314594,8.413845&panoid=VAMbvxwaZiigA_JUOfHBkw&cbp=12,348.5,,0,31.53
P
On 11/16/2010 06:59 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
> If you wanted to describe both the soil and what is growing on the
> soil, would you use both a surface tag and also a landcover tag? For
> example, if you had a sand dune stabilized by beach grass, would you
> use surface=sand and landcover=be
On 11/18/2010 04:32 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
> So, you would be using multiple surface tags on the same area?
No, I'd tag the whole beach as landuse=beach, the sandy areas as
surface=sand and the grass parts as surface=grass.
___
Tagging mailing
On 11/18/2010 09:01 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/11/18 Ralf Kleineisel :
>> On 11/18/2010 04:32 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
>>
>>> So, you would be using multiple surface tags on the same area?
>>
>> No, I'd tag the whole beach as landuse=beac
On 01/02/2011 05:42 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote:
> This was a expected answer. I frequently try to discover the reason OSM
> mappers accepting this anarchistic rule of NOT having tagging rules at all.
> What are the advantages for this?
I prefer this over being told what I may map and what not.
__
On 01/02/2011 07:52 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 19:24, Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
>> I prefer this over being told what I may map and what not.
> Does that not depend on whether you are working for yourself, or as a
> part of a cooperative project? Do you not care whether
On 01/02/2011 08:45 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> You seem to believe that people make up their own ontologies in
> isolation. But that's observably not true. Mappers /voluntarily/ use
> established tags, as long as they know them and don't fundamentally
> disagree with them. For obvious reasons: They
On 02.01.2011 22:40, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
>> I do not want someone telling me "this is not relevant enough" and
>> having the right to delete my edits.
>
> Then make edits which are relevant enough
By which a
On 01/06/2011 06:00 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> What beside of this - I fear, stupid - "certification" is the benefit
> for a hiking map in supporting e.g. maxspeed of motorways as part of the
> OSM core being the decision basis to get the certification?
>
> To make a better example: Garmin AiO f
On 01/06/2011 10:03 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> I suggested that some users with proven credentials be put in charge of
> their own matter: for example, that one or more doctors in Civil
> Engineering took care of the Civil Engineering course. I was told that
> that's not how a wiki works and that
On 01/06/2011 11:47 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> It's not an advantage "on the application side" in itself; it's more of
> an advantage for the user. Say I'm a cyclist and I want a map: I'll
> prefer one with CycleMap 4.3 over one with CycleMap 1.2 over one with no
> CycleMap.
If you plan to have
29 matches
Mail list logo
