Hi,
I'm a newbie here, so I don't know if this has been mentioned before.
Apologies if so.
Network Rail have an online map showing details of all level crossings
on the system:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/level-crossing-safety/
This includes all
And, from a practical perspective, even if it was available under a
suitable licence it wouldn't be suitable for bulk import as quite a lot
of the coordinates are too imprecise.
Hi,
I wasn't thinking of bulk import or downloading.
I added the information in my own words after visiting and
Jez Nicholson wrote:
But Martin (and others) _could_ use the web site to prompt investigations
into crossing locations and manually add/edit in OSM.
If Mark is right and even Network Rail have bad data it shows that you just
cannot trust anyone.
BTW Welcome to the list Martin :)
- Jez
On 24/05/2018 17:51, Martin Wynne wrote:
coincidences
Sorry, that should have been consequences.
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Some people take the position that you cannot add a name ... unless you can
actually see that name clearly being used as the name of the object if you
actually visit the place.
You can of course take matters into your own hands with a felt-tip pen.
A C-number, once marked in very small text
There is also the question of the source used, locally the source of
these references would be an overlay over an OS map labeled crown
copyright making such data incompatible with OSM. I assume that most
local authorities will use similar GIS systems?
Hi Phil,
Worcestershire County Council
There is at least one C road that is signed on the ground because I
remember being surprised at seeing it. It's somewhere in
Cumbria/Yorkshire but I mapped it so long ago I can't remember where
the hell it is
Hi Brian,
There are dozens of them. See this page for photos:
Google publishes a map, but that doesn't mean it's an admissible source for
OSM. :)
Richard
Google publishes a map for profit.
Worcestershire County Council is paid for by me. And a few others.
At this rate, nothing could ever appear on OSM because it is mentioned
in a dictionary or on a
But C and D numbers are not (normally) public, they are internal identifiers
not intended for public use.
They often appear in planning applications, and public notices about
road works and diversions.
All of which are intended for public use.
I can't see why Worcestershire County Council
Copyright doesn't work like that.
But you can't copyright names, addresses and similar material.
Road names and numbers would surely fall within that.
I'm not suggesting copying the document and posting it verbatim.
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing
> I guess it hasn't caused a problem because AFAIK
> there aren't any addresses in 'Avenue'.
Engraved in stone:
https://goo.gl/maps/EXgJxpmjesn
That number 60 address is part of East Street:
http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/
Martin.
___
> And, since that also matches what's on the ground,
What's on the ground is that a property in Avenue has a postal address
in East Street, so maybe Avenue is simply a part of East Street and
should be mapped as "East Street"?
It is in the normal run of East Street numbers - 60 not 60A:
On 10/08/2018 15:08, Edward Catmur wrote:
Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.
Ok, will do. It's just that if you asked the residents I don't think
they intended it primarily to deter furious cycling. Its purpose is
The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them
you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to
everyday life.
Are not some of them still relevant to post-code areas and postal counties?
Lots of useful stuff appears on OSM for which there is nothing
> The description of barrier=cycle_barrier in the wiki looks like
> it might be what you need, combined with appropriate access tags.
> I'd say that's a cycle barrier - the intention would be to allow
> pedestrians to pass, force cyclists to dismount
Thanks for the suggestions.
For
What is the correct tagging for this type of barrier across a road? Two
lengths of parallel railings with a narrow opening at alternate ends.
Blocking vehicles but allowing pedestrian access:
___
|___ |
In the particular
They add no quality to the database.
They do for someone wanting to know where the historic boundaries lie.
For example in cross-referencing the old OS County Series maps, see for
example:
https://maps.nls.uk/view/121856992#zoom=3=8515=14122=BT
Martin.
I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.
Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?
I'm tempted to map these horse-mounting steps as
stairway=to_heaven
http://85a.co.uk/images/little_hereford7_960x800.jpg
http://85a.co.uk/images/little_hereford8_960x500.jpg
Other suggestions welcome. Clearly horse riders need to know where these
useful installations are located.
Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For example,
is this:
https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542
a) a fence,
b) a hedge,
c) a very narrow wood,
d) all three at the same time?
Is the area in front of it
a) grass,
b) highway,
c) both?
(Not mapping from Google, I walked
Another instance where this can cause problems is
something like a public square, in many cases these are legally highways
even if they are, at least most of the time, pedestrianised. But you
can't tag an area as a highway, only a way. So you can't tag a public
open space as a highway even if,
What is the correct tagging for this type of ornate gate often seen at
churchyards?
https://goo.gl/maps/ffu8iQkbhw52
(I'm not mapping from Google, I walked through it yesterday.)
I've tried barrier=gate and building=shelter, but neither alone seems to
adequately describe it.
Thanks all.
In the absence of a an official barrier=lych_gate tag why not use
*both* barrier=gate
and building=shelter tags, which would describe it?
Well, a barrier is a Point, and a building is an Area - the iD editor
doesn't let you combine them. This is not the first time I've been
What you can't do is have landuse=highway, which would otherwise be
the most logical way to deal with such areas.
Why not? I agree it is the most logical way of treating these areas.
Phil (trigpoint)
Hi Phil,
I was told on one of the forums that it was forbidden, because it
affects routing
Certainly as clear as mud, a router will should only look on the left
side. How is that any different to landuse=railway?
Phil (trigpoint)
Hi Phil,
For railways you can have landuse=railway_corridor for sidings and other
wide areas inside the railway's boundary fence. But there doesn't
Both. It's administratively and legally part of the highway, but it's
the part of the highway which consists of a grass verge.
Thanks Mark.
I think I should map that as
landuse=highway
landcover=grass
However for some inexplicable reason, landuse=highway isn't allowed. I
was told the
Landuse=highway does have some usage, and certainly the term forbidden
does not exist in OSM.
There is no such thing as available, if you think a new tag is needed
then you can use it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway
Hi Phil,
I'm confused. If anyone
But that's my point. We can just look it up, if we start from the
assumption that the Local Government Act distinction between a town and
a village (technically, between a town and a parish, but that's just
terminology) is definitive. So observation doesn't need to come into it.
If that's
There are, indeed, multiple definitions of the difference between a town
and a village
A useful indicator is the street lighting.
Generally a town has continuous evenly spaced street lamps along all or
most roads within its boundary.
Villages often have no street lighting, or only a few
You were suggesting identifying them by observation, using street lights
as a distinguishing factor.
Yes, in the event that you are uncertain. I said it was a useful indicator.
If you already know, you don't need an indicator. No-one is going to be
in any doubt about whether Evesham is a town
Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
Northern Ireland to leave GB. You've been misinformed!
Hi Toby,
Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it's not part of GB.
GB is England, Scotland and Wales.
The official title of this country is "The United Kingdom of
But it's not a useful indicator, because it's least reliable precisely
in the cases where you are most uncertain.
Surely the more uncertain you are, the more useful an indicator becomes?
The presence or absence of a row of street lamps is not a wishy-washy
legal opinion, or an argument in
How long does it take for the edits to go through to OSM? I expected it to
be live but this doesn't seem to be the case.
Hi Rob,
Press CTRL+F5 to refresh the page from the server to see the edits. It
sometimes takes a few seconds to update.
The map rendering takes longer at some zoom
The Met Office has a new web site in beta. The mapping is now credited
to OSM:
https://beta.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcmg86my9#?date=2018-10-20
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM &
nothing to do with this specific subject.
OSM mappers spend many hours of their free time adding stuff to OSM
because it interests them and in the hope that others may find it
useful. Simply because they enjoy doing it as
landuse=farmland just changed colour in front of my eyes on the standard
OSM map: https://openstreetmap.org
It's a big improvement. The previous pinky colour made vast areas of the
UK look like a desert. The pale green colour is a much better
representation for cultivated land. It also makes
How can you verify it's the same stream?
I can't. I've deleted it.
This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a
road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such. Under
a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?
What is a stream? Even if it's the
Poohsticks.
(How did the conversation get to this...)
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't
be verified on the ground.
I map lots of stuff that can't be verified on the ground. For example
rural bus stops often have no physical marker.
Martin.
Do we map pipelines? Or just the visible markers? What is the correct
tagging for this:
Sorry, forget that. I found:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:pipeline%3Dmarker
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
immediately.
"Verifiable on
I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which is
"current or real".
See for example this node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2518973091
There is absolutely nothing on the ground. And 1402 is a long time ago
to be current.
But there is a brown sign directing visitors
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't
be verified on the ground.
No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.
Make up your minds!
Previously:
> > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map onl
On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
See the OSM Welcome page.
Thanks. The wording there is:
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
current."
Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".
What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or
On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
I'm about to do a GB wide edit
As a recent mapper I'm interested to know - if a GB-wide edit is needed,
how does it get decided who should do it?
cheers,
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
upset!
Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the
increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous
data.
Well that
On 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote:
> It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the
river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the
same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is
mapped as an area.
Thanks Edward.
But
On 06/01/2019 20:47, Edward Catmur wrote:
But what does "a bit much" mean in relation to mapping what you find on
the ground? Either a thing is there or it isn't. You can leave it out,
or make a reasonable stab at drawing what you actually see in front of
your nose.
To me the issue is one of
On 18/01/2019 09:49, Brian Prangle wrote:
Has anyone else noticed problems with edits failing to render?. Stuff I did
2 days ago still not showing up
Try pressing CTRL+F5 in your browser to refresh the page. Your browser
may be caching old tiles. This is especially a problem in Google Chrome.
On 07/01/2019 17:38, Paul Berry wrote:
I'd say the analogue to a ford is a level crossing:
The iD editor lets you set ford=level_crossing (as opposed to
stepping_stones, etc.).
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
I've yet to see a Land Registry title plan go to the centreline of the road. I
guess it might occasionally for an unadopted highway but typically the boundary
between highway and private property is either at the back of the pavement or
some distance beyond that (verge) depending on
What is the dividing line between:
highway=bridleway designation=public_bridleway
and
highway=track designation=public_bridleway
The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a
rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a small
tractor or 4x4
To me the simplest rule of thumb
is that a park is fenced, allowing the authorities to control access, while
a common is unfenced allowing anyone to access it at any time.
The local municipal park here is unfenced, just a row of low wooden
bollards to prevent vehicle incursions. Access on foot
The path tag is actively being discouraged.
Which makes it more necessary to have some direction on what constitutes
a "track". Is sufficient width for vehicles enough by itself to convert
a footpath to a track, or does there need to be some evidence of actual
vehicular use?
It's a common
On 14/03/2019 15:29, Devonshire wrote:
If there are parallel tracks visible (even if maybe historic) I would tag it as
a track, if a single track is visible then tag it as a footway.
Thanks Kevin. Do you mean wheel ruts, footprints?
In the case of my photo, there was no evidence of any use
On 11/03/2019 12:53, Devonshire wrote:
I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination of
highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. contains
more useful information both for map rendering and for active map users.
Whether you wan't to do
I'm minded to start adding
survey:date=
to some of my mapping (if you can call climbing over a stile surveying
it). I've noticed on repeat visits that things do change quite a lot,
and I can't guarantee to go back and keep everything I map up to date.
But I'm puzzled by the wiki, which
There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length as
sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get
between adjacent fields.
It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no
On 11/03/2019 08:49, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience England and Wales
should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy
mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.
Thanks Phil. I'm doing all
How do you propose funding such a service?
Hi David,
When I first found OSM the standard map was up and running, so I assumed
that matter had been resolved. It is still currently up and running and
displayed on the front page, so I assume it is still resolved?
If not, perhaps a Donation
For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of
Google maps.
That's certainly my reason for adding stuff to OSM. If it doesn't appear
on the "standard map" I'm not much inclined to spend hours recording it
and mapping it. If there is a way I can legitimately change the
p.s. just noticed there is indeed a tiny Donation link on the bottom
right corner. Perhaps it needs to be bigger?
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Are there any data users who use 'highway=footway;foot=yes' to
distinguish from other footways?
I also find much of the wiki unclear.
To my mind:
highway=footway means a narrow smooth physical object capable of being
walked along in safety.
If you can't do that, it is not a footway. So for
It's entirely reasonable to think "to my mind X means ..." but when
tagging thing in OSM it makes sense to try and match the approach of
more people - in OSM, the usage of highway=footway is much wider than
your definition.
Thanks Andy. But you also wrote recently:
> just pick whatever
or record its actual usage?
Yes, in as much as "record its actual usage" is essentially the same as
"describe its usage".
Hi Andy,
I was meaning "describe its physical appearance".
For example, for:
http://85a.uk/track_query_960x648.jpg
I could tag it as:
highway=track (physical
If we sue them for damages, who gets the money? I can see some of my
edits on there. :)
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Apart from the specialised tags such as "orchard" there appears to be
only 2 tags available for general agricultural land:
farmland
which I have taken to mean arable land. i.e. land suitable for the
growing of crops, even if currently used as pasture for grazing by
livestock; and
meadow
In the local park there are two areas of play equipment for children.
One is fenced off and clearly intended for infants/toddlers accompanied
by parents.
Next to it there is a larger unfenced area containing play equipment for
unsupervised older children, large climbing structures, zip
On 04/06/2019 15:31, Philip Barnes wrote:
I would map them as separate playgrounds, map the fence and gate then add age
tags as appropriate to that area.
My towns main rec has such a distinction, outside the fenced children's area
anyone can use the equipment.
Hi Phil,
That's what I've
What about `max_age=toddler`? (i.e. the oldest you can be is "a
toddler"), likewise `min_age=young_child` for the "older" one? (Is that
the best term?) Yes it's not a numeric age, but it's better than nothing?
Thanks Rory.
I wondered about that. If a tag expects a numeric value, is it ok to
Some of the fields are edged with small wooden posts to prevent driving
onto the grass. Is this a 'fence'? if so, what is its type?
Hi Jez,
You can tag a way as barrier=bollard for a row of posts.
cheers,
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Mapping individual equipment is a possibility, whilst as a 58 year old I am
unlikely to use the swings but I do use the exercise equipment and climbing
wall.
Hi Phil,
Here the exercise equipment is in a separate area away from the
playground. According to the wiki it should be tagged
At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a
nature reserve:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816
In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and
ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife
Trust, the
Thanks for the comments.
There are in fact 3 adjacent nature reserves with different names and
ownerships.
It's possible to see the property boundaries on old maps, but after
visiting the site again yesterday I can find little remaining physical
evidence of the boundaries, with many
I refer to the Rhiw Valley Light Railway:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.61639/-3.26766
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5712937
This is a private 15" gauge railway which holds regular open days for
the public:
http://rvlr.co.uk/
It is currently tagged as railway=miniature.
On 21/05/2019 12:18, Mark Goodge wrote:
> ...
From a mapping perspective, therefore, there are two questions which
need to be asked:
1. Was the railway originally constructed purely for leisure purposes?
2. Are the locomotives intended to be models or replicas of full-size
locomotives (or
barrier=stile seems unhelpful to me if rendered as a normal stile
symbol, for walkers needing to know if they will have to climb any.
barrier=chicane would perhaps be more descriptive?
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 07/05/2019 13:21, Russ Garrett wrote:
From a zoomed-out perspective, landuse= (and natural=) is the main
thing you see on the map (especially if buildings aren't mapped), so I
think it's pretty useful from a cartographic point of view. It's not
just about what you see on the ground, but
On 07/05/2019 13:04, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
Primarily, map
what you see on the ground, Any legalese requirements (access
restrictions etc) can be added as secondary tags.
Thanks Dave. In that case, I would think landuse=residential would be a
secondary tag on something else more visible?
On 07/05/2019 11:34, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
Your OSM example look fine to me - a single property is still where
people reside. Any other details, such as garden, should be mapped
individually within that area.
Thanks Dave. But in that case, why in the iD editor when I change
"Residential
On 07/05/2019 12:04, David Woolley wrote:
I would say it was anything that was landuse=residential, and, in the
UK, that would basically be anything where the primary planning class
was C3 or C4.
Thanks David.
I think this goes to the heart of my (mis)understanding of what OSM is for?
Are
What is a "residential area" in the iD editor? How many dwellings are
needed in what proximity to become one? Is it a physical plot of land on
which at least one person lives? Or the usual meaning of a
village/hamlet/housing estate/suburb where a number of people live?
In my patch there are
On 07/05/2019 15:40, David Woolley wrote:
Describing the physical object is a way of objectively mapping, but if
that is all you do, you don't need a map; just use the aerial imagery
directly.
Yes, but the aerial imagery isn't available *free* for anyone to use for
anything. It's not edited
On 07/05/2019 14:38, David Woolley wrote:
However, I wouldn't say the primary purpose of the area you were asking
about is to be a garden; I would say it is somewhere to reside, and the
gardens form a subsidiary part of it, and should be represented with
nested areas.
Thanks David.
But is
Many thanks Nick and Michael. I obviously need to do more RTFM. :)
I did some digging in the Help panel and found that there are several
out-of-date lists of iD shortcuts.
To get the Measurements panel to appear I have to press CTRL+I, not M,
at least in the Opera browser.
The scalebar is
On 05/05/2019 14:42, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
Hi
I'm not convinced it's a bridge
I would tag your example as a ford=yes, handrail=yes.
DaveF
Thanks all.
I'm also not convinced it's a bridge. There is no evidence of any other
structure at each end of the handrail. I suspect the small
)
DaveF
On 22/04/2019 13:43, Martin Wynne wrote:
Often in my travels I come across something like this:
http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg
http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg
Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?
If the latter, which node should the way
Is this a footbridge? Or maybe a ford? Stepping stones?
There is a solid handrail, but only a small plank of rotten wood, about
2ft long by 4 inches wide, dropped in the mud:
http://85a.uk/plank_bridge.jpg
Thanks,
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing
On 05/05/2019 17:39, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
Given the small width of the ditch, I wouldn't bother with the separate
way, but just put the ford & handrail tags on the intersecting node.
The way you've mapped it the ford & handrail are 5 metres in length.
Thanks Dave.
I have shortened it
The trade mark is "best-one", see:
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/4/EU004384137
from which:
Mark Description: The phrase "best-one" is written in lower case,
italicized, with "best-" in yellow and "one" in white."
The company name is:
Bestway Wholesale Limited, 2
Got a Link?
If you're mapping linear ways a node at their intersection with ford=yes
is required.
Thanks Dave. I have now added an intersection node, which has fixed the
error.
However, it seems a bit odd to have to do that? It means there are now 2
elements tagged ford=yes, an
How should I tag this? It's a former phone box in use to advertise the
attractions of the local pub. I don't know if it was done by the pub, or
by the local community. Possibly it's a community-run pub.
http://85a.uk/pub_kiosk_600x860.jpg
thanks,
Martin.
On 08/05/2019 12:46, Andy Townsend wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps some kind of tourist information
feature?
Thanks Andy. I think it is intended for locals rather than tourists.
It's in a village on a country lane, not a recognised tourist destination.
On closer examination of
On 04/07/2019 18:51, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
These are still 'physical' in the sense that they exist in the timetable
& Naptan documents. (Think also boundaries which don't have dashed lines
painted across fields)
This strikes me as a strange definition of "physical" and could cover
On 04/07/2019 16:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
In OSM we map
*physical* objects only.
In rural areas there are many places where buses are timetabled to stop
but where there is nothing physical -- no signpost or shelter.
Are these highway=bus_stop in OSM?
The wiki for highway says "Can
Often in my travels I come across something like this:
http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg
http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg
Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?
If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?
It's a public right of way on
seen this done in various places, but I've never understood the point
it. The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but
the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a
pain to work with in the editors.
This happens a lot in my area. Huge areas of
On 05/09/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: It would seem ridiculous
for me to have to set up an account and> licence the underlying section
of map to sell a single field But what> if I'm selling 15,000
fields?? etc., etc.
Field boundaries don't change much over the years. If you use an
On 29/07/2019 09:35, Andy Robinson wrote:
I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area. A lot of
service roads are getting added which on face value look perhaps to be
driveways but that tag hasn't been added.
Amazon have been asking for help with this, see:
On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote:
...
(As a variation on the last point, one of my pet hates, these days, is
how few houses now have house numbers in the UK. It make it difficult
to give accurate locations for fly tips
Have you seen: https://what3words.com/
Every 3m (10ft) square on
The tag is *barrier*=gate.
A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be
tagged as such. At least not across a way.
You could add a separate node to one side of the way, and tag that as a
gate.
A gate which is often open, but sometimes closed, is just an ordinary
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
