iansan5653 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 25 21:20:12 UTC 2015
Here are some examples of this, just to clarify. I don't see how these
could possibly be mapped as nodes, so I really don't understand what the
debate was in the first place:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM Gerd Petermann <
GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I want to thank all of you for the input. I think
> it is common sense (now) that tunnel=culvert
> should be used on ways only, so I'd be happy to see
> the wiki pages changed so that they don't suggest
> to use the tag on a node.
> Who can do that?
> Von: Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2015 14:39
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:20:10AM +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > I don't think that this is a strong point.
> > Thinking about my own edits I'd say that the
> > length could be +/- 4m because typically I just try to place
> > the nodes somewhere neer the road, if I find an existing
> > node that looks good enough I use that.
> > On the other hand, I think we make
> > assumptions about the width of the road based on its
> > type (primary, secondary ,etc),
> > so this assumption would also apply on the culvert.
> So we implicitly assume a width of a road now we propagate
> this fault to all attached objects?
> We should reduce errors by implicitly assuming something not
> increase them.
> Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
> We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging