On 18 February 2011 18:04, waldo000...@gmail.com waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with the access suggestion, eg
access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
You mean caravan=*, right? This is already listed at
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, it would be
caravan=no, just like
On 18 February 2011 18:56, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
considered subtags of
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea.
It's documented and everything.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
I can't see any basis for doing this one differently. But why don't
On 18 February 2011 19:28, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea.
It's documented and everything.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith
deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
will the caravan=no belong on the cycleway or will it belong on the
main way?
Heh. Ever heard of a bike path that permitted caravans?
This discussion just informs us that the access tagging system has
faults.
Discuss
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: Literal text from sign
...on the basis such a thing cannot be questioned, because that is what
is
On 17/02/11 20:16, {withheld} wrote:
Here is a suggestion:
Whenever a situation like this comes up (i.e. posted signage which does
not fit neatly in a predetermined/official tag case), why not introduce
a new tag:
signposted: Literal text from sign
...on the basis such a thing cannot
I've been tagging these with caravan=no where I've found them.
I'd suggest caravan=no if not at all and caravan=unsuitable if it's only
signposted as not suitable.
This is in keeping with the other tags like 4wd_only=yes/no/recommended.
I'd also suggest adding the signposted= or
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 08:02 +0100, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Make a new specific tag (unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey), and document it on the wiki
(with a photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
I see the problem with my HGV proposal. On my
I agree with the access suggestion, eg
access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag
instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 11:43 +1000, John Smith wrote:
I agree with the access suggestion, eg
access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag
instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc
This should be quite easy to script a change for, as
Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems
like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
--
Sent from my mobile device
___
Talk-au mailing list
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:58 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems
like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
IMHO, the poor sap who plans his
On 17/02/11 12:58, John Smith wrote:
Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems
like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
I've got at least one to tag also. Maybe
access:caravan=unsuitable
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:50 +1100, John Henderson wrote:
On 17/02/11 12:58, John Smith wrote:
Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems
like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
I've got at
On 17/02/11 16:12, David Murn wrote:
Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV?
Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place?
I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be places where
caravans are permitted (encouraged even), but HGVs not
Make a new specific tag (unsuitable_for_caravans=yes;
source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey), and document it on the wiki (with a
photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
Saw a couple of roads signed
On 17 February 2011 15:52, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:
On 17/02/11 16:12, David Murn wrote:
Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV?
Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place?
I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be
20 matches
Mail list logo
