Salut Marc
Am 22.07.2018 um 23:18 schrieb marc marc:
Hello,
sorry for my very late opinion
Markus thanks it's a good thing you made these fixes
but for me it doesn't go far enough. Andreas as lonvia says (if I'm not mistaken), there's a conceptual error in what you put in the osm database and I get the impression that every attempt to solve this problem results in a new version of the same problem.
To make a long story short; What is your precise proposal, Marc?
Could you please make some detailed examples with all keys of your idea, in order that I or others can apply your concept to the ~ 240 fountains?
Thank you in advance for your constructive efforts. :-)
cheeers, h.
in fact what is the meaning of having localisation:description if this description is not one and is limited to a "nominatim literal version"? for me a description of the location would be "this fountain is in a lovely park with a beautiful view of the lake". "go to 23 and turn right" is not a description, it's a routing info. "this fountain is close to number 23" isn't a description either.
let's push this problem to the absurd. amenity=fountain amenity:description="it's a fountain" note=Ausser Betrieb note:description="the note explain that the fountain doesn't work" source=Survey source:description="a survey was made and the mapper doesn't put this key on the changeset but put it on the objet" lat:description=The lat is 123" long:description=The long is 456" neighbourhood:description=The fountain is in a park nearest_bus_stop:descrition=The nearest mapped bus stop is 18.5m fair away nearest_cafe:descrition=The nearest mapped cafe is 72m fair away
none of this makes any sense ! if a umap needs to display the nearest address or any other information already in the osm database, it is counterproductive to duplicate every tag on any objects where this information is needed. duplicate it with addr:* nor duplicate it with description solve the main issue.
PS1: the bassin of a fountain isn't a barrier=retaining_wall if you want to micro-map it, it's maybe better to tag it as landuse=reservoir + content=water like the one I have fixed https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8322503 PS2: putting the same tag on a MP relation and on the outer way is often wrong PS3: tag:de is only need if tag already exist. having a langage variant without any variant is imho not needed. so location:description is enought if no other location:description:xxx exist
Regards, Marc
Le 22. 07. 18 à 22:38, SelfishSeahorse a écrit :
Oh, I'm sorry! :-( I've fixed it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60961446
Please excuse the mistake.
BTW: JOSM complains about 'multipolygon outer way shares segment(s) with other ring' and 'role verification problem' errors. Could you please have a look at that? Or send me a message, if I can help you.
Regards, Markus On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 at 21:27, Andreas Bürki abuerki@anidor.com wrote:
Hello
Am 20.07.2018 um 19:49 schrieb SelfishSeahorse:
[...]
Unfortunately, my Overpass query only found fountain nodes, but after defining an area set (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ArJ), it seems that it now has also found fountain ways and relations. Here's the link to the 2nd changeset:
Locks to me like you confused
name:description:de with description:name:de
Can you please fix that?
Correct tag is:
name:description:de
Thank you for your work.
cheeers, h.
Regards, Markus
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
--
Andreas Bürki
abuerki@anidor.com S/MIME certificate - SHA-256 fingerprint: 8A:1A:C2:93:10:4B:CE:91:2C:80:79:44:24:1D:38:CA:EE:0E:89:C9:A5:A4:A0:03:FF:5A:FB:D1:15:18:B5:45 GnuPG - GPG fingerprint: 5DA7 5F48 25BD D2D7 E488 05DF 5A99 A321 7E42 0227 _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch