/webcams/riegelsberg_webcam
Is it really? You never know. Any webcam is a surveillance cam. The
purpose and details of surveillance may vary.
Zecke.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
uot;url" is just another / some
webpage.
I heared it also as Pieren wrote. URL should be replaced by website for
better readability by non-techies.
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Semicolons are the perfect measure to denote a feature that has more
than one value. It is important to use it, even if renderers are
reluctant to implement it. The more it is used, the higher the pressure
to them to implement it.
Zecke
Am 13.01.2014 10:28, schrieb Pieren:
On Mon, Jan 13
Am 13.01.2014 23:18, schrieb André Pirard:
I also would feel like accepting the semicolon, but after thinking
twice I notice that
religion=religion1;religion2;;religion
denomination=denomination1;denomination2
would become even more problematic already.
Why? Of course, you must include the
.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage
Even if it's only a draft, it is a de facto standard and broadly used.
See for example the historical objects map:
http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/translate/en/i
ve votes for a successful
proposal to be in any way representative for the community of tens of
thousands of active mappers or more. However, when a proposal leads to
another tagging being accepted by the community in a considerable way we
are eager to include it on
resource=limestone, marble, sand (or whatever)
(which implies a quarry)
Cheers,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
map slopes beside a line object that
itself is man_made=*. So the slope should be an attribute to the line.
Would embankment=yes/right/left/both be the correct tag in your opinion?
Regards,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggin
DEMs nowadays, and
everybody knows that there are slopes on the mountains.
I'm not speaking of roads (as is done in the wiki) but in more general
terms of line objects. In fact I'm not dealing with roads. Any mapper is
free to map as many details is he likes.
Cheers,
Zecke
t
of the contour will be mapped as a line and that part coincides with the
slope.
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am 04.09.2014 22:09, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
On 04.09.2014 21:19, Zecke wrote:
Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they
are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the
contour will be mapped as a line
This does not sound right. Spoil heaps are areas
heers,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
step in) or as mineshafts (when you can't).
Cheers,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
map:
http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/
Cheers,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
n came up for citywalls recently whether we
should render them even if they aren't tagged as historic. Have to check
on that.
Cheers
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
as a bug in our selection mechanism which
prevented them from being rendered as such. This should be fixed by now.
http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=14&lat=45.40335&lon=11.88057&layers=BFFF
ects with the razed: prefix for
objects that once existed but now there are only barely remnants or even
indirect indications thereof.
As long as there is a historical interest in them and there is a slight
indication of its position we are willing to map them in the historic map.
Cheers,
Zecke
_
ould see only the opening
gate (Portal, Stolleneingang) as the entrance, not the passage (Stollen)
itself that leads to the digging zone ("Abbauort") which might be
extended but which also might be the dead end. The passage might be
quite long and I see
nd [2].
I'm thinking to use man_made=tower historic=yes, but IMHO I think it's
more correct to use historic=tower (that does not appear in the wiki).
Both taggings are accepted. The historic map [1] shows both. A
documentation of which tags are interpreted can be found here [2].
Ch
Artificial rock faces in quarries and open pit mines, called berms,
are created due to blasting. The faces are typically inclined 60-70°
with drops of max. a few tenth of meters. This fundamental difference
might be best taken into account by using man_made=embankment for these.
I have to co
Please note that www.historic.place displays the orientation of adits.
As it can be seen here:
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=17&lat=49.27361&lon=6.9515&select=n2218896180&pid=KmHaSaHe
We evaluate the direction tag, Please note that the direction is
Am 10.03.2017 20:04, schrieb Mike Thompson:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny
mailto:kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I can just now hear, nevertheless, a chorus asserting that the
information is available by other means and therefore does not
belong in OSM. An ad
Am 12.03.2017 00:24, schrieb Tod Fitch:
Fresh from correcting tagging on some adits, I realize that I have probably
miss-tagged some other features as mine shafts. In the semi-arid area with a
history of mining that I am trying to add details to, there are man made
features the old USGS topo m
Am 16.03.2017 05:13, schrieb Tod Fitch:
It seems to me that the first and the third definitions should be
split into separate tags with the second definition deprecated.
I agree that this situation is suboptimal. The second meaning has
nothing to do with a direction but with a sense of rotation.
When I started mapping adits I also felt that "length" would fit better
than "depth". However at that time length and depth were similar in usage.
Cheers,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lis
Am 15.05.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Michal Fabík:
Shouldn't the tag be "man_made=adit_portal"
Why not just man_made=adit_entrance? I'm not sure I'd call a crudely
dug opening (like the one in the picture on the Wiki page) a portal.
(Maybe it's just me.)
An "adit" is by definition an /entran
Am 15.05.2017 um 14:37 schrieb Andy Townsend:
On 15/05/2017 12:59, Zecke wrote:
An "adit" is by definition an /entrance /to a subterranean gallery or
drift.
Er, no - at least not according to my understanding of the term as it
is used locally to me in England.
Well, I'm no
Am 15.05.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Fabík:
I did a quick overpass search for ways tagged as adits and some of the
cases are interesting, to say the least:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108932116
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33139563
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220961406
http://www
Am 15.05.2017 um 14:37 schrieb Andy Townsend:
On 15/05/2017 12:59, Zecke wrote:
An "adit" is by definition an /entrance /to a subterranean gallery or
drift.
Er, no - at least not according to my understanding of the term as it
is used locally to me in England.
Well, after some g
Am 15.05.2017 um 16:04 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
how would you tag the adit then? (I'm asking for the feature that is
described in the wiki: a horizontal or almost horizontal tunnel going
into the underground)
I wouldn't map that at all. And if so, a tunnel=yes, layer=-1 should
describe al
t blanks should be used - maybe we need a rework of the
date format rules)
Regards,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
should have the same acceptance as 3D objects.
As far as I see, image:present and image:ancient do not induce the same
opposition as image:date? I could live with that.
Kind regards,
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lis
32 matches
Mail list logo
