User talk:PiRK/Tag:natural=cloud

I think this is an excellent idea. For too long, maps in general and OpenStreetMap in particular have been tied to the two-dimensional representation of data. This adds a new dimension to how beneficial this project could be, and follows in the footsteps of something like raintoday.co.uk. Moresby (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

here is an example of rendering:http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=17&lat=48.63541&lon=-1.51142&layers=B0000000FFFFFFT

There are a lot of synergies we could develop with openmeteodata as well. --PiRK (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Interaction with aerialways?

A problem is: how do we map the clouds when the are very low and come in contact with aerialway-cables? Should the clouds be split or just mapped with shared nodes on the cables?. -- ––––

Too open to edit wars

I stand (in the shade) behind this proposal however I think its a safe bet that there will be edit wars as a result of this. The DWG will have a nightmare of a time verifying which is the correct version. --DaCor (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Imagery providers removing potential datasources

MapBox are major culprits in this. They are making decisions by themselves on what should show on imagery. What about those of us who want to map clouds??? Maybe Cloudmade can help --DaCor (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional layer-tag?

I'm missing a reference to the layer-tag to describe if the cloude is above or below ground level. This also would be helpful if you try to map overlapping clouds. By nature of clouds layer=1 should be concidered as a default. --Pherison (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)