Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-14 22:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be opened by residents? access=destination says nothing about a legitimate reason to be there according to the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access) - just that it's your destination. For example, you might want to go to a park within such a community to walk your dog, which would seem to be allowed by access=destination on the gate node, roads, or parking, but that would be incorrect unless you are, or are the guest of, a resident. I tag everything within such gated communities as access=private. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
On Sunday, April 15, 2012, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-14 22:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be opened by residents? access=destination says nothing about a legitimate reason to be there according to the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.**org/wiki/Accesshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access) - just that it's your destination. For example, you might want to go to a park within such a community to walk your dog, which would seem to be allowed by access=destination on the gate node, roads, or parking, but that would be incorrect unless you are, or are the guest of, a resident. I tag everything within such gated communities as access=private. +1 Everywhere private has a class of people who are legitimately allowed there. The point about destination is that anyone is allowed but only if they are going to that place (typically the restriction is to stop rat running). There's also access=permissive, where a location is private (not a right) but the owner gives blanket permission for anyone to access. That doesn't sem to be the case here. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
On 4/15/2012 3:55 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-14 22:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be opened by residents? access=destination says nothing about a legitimate reason to be there according to the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access) - just that it's your destination. For example, you might want to go to a park within such a community to walk your dog, which would seem to be allowed by access=destination on the gate node, roads, or parking, but that would be incorrect unless you are, or are the guest of, a resident. On the other hand, private says Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. But the owner is the homeowners association, and the individual residents can allow people in. In addition, the example for destination - customer parking lots - has the same problems as a gated community. You (usually) can't park there to sleep in your car or have a tailgate party. How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] POI for Hotel
Am 13. April 2012 19:44 schrieb John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com: On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Prices on the other hand are also of interest if you look for a hotel, but there is currently no hope to keep this information up to date (and usually there are lots of prices, dependent on the particular room (view/orientation, location, size, ...). To make these reachable from OSM, perhaps the best thing to do would be to use the website tag to point to the hotel's own web site. That's always useful, but it doesn't solve the issue of getting the data for a query like: give me all the hotels cheaper than 66 EUR for a double room with bathroom in this bounding box. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
Am 14. April 2012 03:10 schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Possible values: surface=historic_cobblestone surface=preserved_cobblestone surface=rounded_cobblestone I'd prefer to focus on the shape and therefore rounded_cobblestone, because other aspects like historic can be expressed with additional tags. Also not all true cobblestones are necessarily old. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] POI for Hotel
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: That's always useful, but it doesn't solve the issue of getting the data for a query like: give me all the hotels cheaper than 66 EUR for a double room with bathroom in this bounding box. I'm not sure why you would attempt such a query with nothing but OSM data. There are multiple websites that specialize in this type of thing and are far better at it than OSM will ever be because they have direct interaction with hotels to handle the volatility in prices, room availability and other considerations that are entirely outside of the scope of OSM. hotels.com, orbitz.com, kayak.com, priceline.com, travelocity.com, etc, etc There could certainly be interaction between these sites and OSM. But OSM is not a travel site and I would never use it as such. Toby ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] POI for Hotel
I'm not sure why you would attempt such a query with nothing but OSM data. There are multiple websites that specialize in this type of thing and are far better at it than OSM will ever be because they have direct interaction with hotels to handle the volatility in prices, room availability and other considerations that are entirely outside of the scope of OSM. OSM is not a travel site and I would never use it as such. Absolutely correct. We need to be extremely careful not to put volatile info into the OSM database. We would end up with a heap of useless data. We simply do not have the means for maintaining that type of data. Volker Padova, Italy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Btw. I think current Mapnik rendering renders addr:housenumber=* over barrier=gate . Meaning: if u tag em both u won't see the gate icon at all but only the house number. .. Which imho is not ideal. I'd love to see both rendered (when space allows) as both are of high importance. This is based on my experience in Haiti where often the only instructions to a place is eg: about 400m down, black gate on the left with #15 on it. Has anyone bn thinking about this? (How) can I submit a ticket to suggest fixing this? .. Nico, Sev, Brian: could this be taken in consideration in the possible Haiti custom rendering style? Cheers, -Jaakko --Original Message-- From: Alan Mintz To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools ReplyTo: Tag discussion,strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination? Sent: Apr 15, 2012 05:30 At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Le 15/04/2012 10:10, Nathan Edgars II a écrit : On 4/15/2012 3:55 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-14 22:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be opened by residents? access=destination says nothing about a legitimate reason to be there according to the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access) - just that it's your destination. For example, you might want to go to a park within such a community to walk your dog, which would seem to be allowed by access=destination on the gate node, roads, or parking, but that would be incorrect unless you are, or are the guest of, a resident. On the other hand, private says Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. But the owner is the homeowners association, and the individual residents can allow people in. Permission can be given 'a priori' for friends, delivery men, rather than case by case, so access=private fits. -- FrViPofm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-15 05:38, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote: Btw. I think current Mapnik rendering renders addr:housenumber=* over barrier=gate . Meaning: if u tag em both u won't see the gate icon at all but only the house number. .. Which imho is not ideal. I'd love to see both rendered (when space allows) as both are of high importance. This is based on my experience in Haiti where often the only instructions to a place is eg: about 400m down, black gate on the left with #15 on it. Has anyone bn thinking about this? (How) can I submit a ticket to suggest fixing this? .. Nico, Sev, Brian: could this be taken in consideration in the possible Haiti custom rendering style? I would normally tag the address on a landuse area or a building node or area, not on the gate. However, I would agree that Mapnik should render whatever icon is represented by the other tagging on a node at a higher priority than using the house icon associated with addr:housenumber. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
I prefer tagging the addr:housenumber on building outline, landuse, parcel, etc, too. That's clearly the right place for it. The challenge, though, is that if/when one is simply driving by it's very difficult to know especially in densly built areas where the # should be placed -- even when looking at the imagery afterwards. So, in these cases it makes sense to me to tag the house# on the gate. .. And it might make sense to tag it on that in any case to pinpoint which gate (of the often many nearby gates) is the one with that specific #). And just to clarify: Mapnik doesn't render any house icon on addr:housenumber, it merely renders the number (and in the case of combined use of barrier=gate it does that currently at the expense of the gate icon). Cheers, -Jaakko Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:50:31 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolstagging@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination? At 2012-04-15 05:38, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote: Btw. I think current Mapnik rendering renders addr:housenumber=* over barrier=gate . Meaning: if u tag em both u won't see the gate icon at all but only the house number. .. Which imho is not ideal. I'd love to see both rendered (when space allows) as both are of high importance. This is based on my experience in Haiti where often the only instructions to a place is eg: about 400m down, black gate on the left with #15 on it. Has anyone bn thinking about this? (How) can I submit a ticket to suggest fixing this? .. Nico, Sev, Brian: could this be taken in consideration in the possible Haiti custom rendering style? I would normally tag the address on a landuse area or a building node or area, not on the gate. However, I would agree that Mapnik should render whatever icon is represented by the other tagging on a node at a higher priority than using the house icon associated with addr:housenumber. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 14. April 2012 03:10 schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Possible values: surface=historic_cobblestone surface=preserved_cobblestone surface=rounded_cobblestone I'd prefer to focus on the shape and therefore rounded_cobblestone, because other aspects like historic can be expressed with additional tags. Also not all true cobblestones are necessarily old. cheers, Martin True. I have seen some modern construction that used natural river cobblestones, rather than cut stones. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes: On the other hand, private says Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. But the owner is the homeowners association, and the individual residents can allow people in. That's creating nits where they don't even exist! Owner is a more complicated concept (and for this discussion would include a person leasing a single-family house). I think the key issue with legitimate reason is that it's tied to thinking about rights of access. With an entirely private place, only owners have a right of access (ignoring utility easements), and everyone else is there by permission. In addition, the example for destination - customer parking lots - has the same problems as a gated community. You (usually) can't park there to sleep in your car or have a tailgate party. True, but that raises the larger question we keep avoiding: are we building an ontology to represent the entire world? My impression is that access=destination is a slightly damaged version of access=yes. The road is a public way, but use for other than going within the complex/etc. is specially prohibited. It seems those lots are tagged access=customers. That's an expanded version of access=private, to note that customers of nearby stores have permission. These two uses are fundamentally different (public- vs private+). access=private/permissive/destination/yes is currently more or less based on concepts in English law. I think what you're trying to do (and I understand why and think it's reasonable) is to have a way to define the set of people How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? That's reasonable, but these are subtypes of access=private. perhaps private=residents private=guests I think it's helpful to articulate what the data consumers are going to do, and what decisions they need to make, which leads to working on the grand ontology (which is what I was doing above). pgpLl3ZnPEeai.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2012, 15:42:29 schrieb fly: I still do not get one major point which was totally left out on the first scheme. What actually belongs to a point and how are they tagged. Especially on big crossings and roundabouts I always was confused (e.g. it might be possible that a part of this point is blocked but how do I know which one and you might be able to use the first/last exit/entrance of a junction but not the rest. ) Indeed, this is what I was worried about as well. Here's a proposed (partial) fix, which starts from the original proposal. Let's assume that 123, 456 and 789 are connected LCD which describe a road. Further assume that at 456 there's a big intersection. Then: - All ways between 123 and 456 are marked tmc=DE:123+456, and all ways between 456 and 789 are marked tmc=DE:456+789. - All ways on the intersection 456 leading from 123 to 789 are then marked tmc=DE:456+. This has several advantages: - A traffic jam between 123 and 456 will not block the intersection 456 anymore. - Exits are defined as follows: an exit at 456 in positive direction starts at a way that is tagged either tmc=DE:456+ or tmc=DE:123+456 (from), uses a node that is part of a way tagged either tmc=DE:456+ or tmc=DE:456+789 (via) and ends at a way that is tagged neither tmc=DE:456+ nor tmc=DE:456+789, nor tmc=DE:123+456 (to). An exit is therefore a maneuver. This may sound a bit technical at first, but none of this is exposed to the tagging, and the idea of an exit is probably quite intuitive. - Likewise, entries are defined. - Automatic consistency checking is still possible, as there are no holes. There is at least one issue that still has to be addressed: this tagging does not imply an ordering of the exits / entries; it is not clear what the first, second… exit would be. Eckhart Wörner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] POI for Hotel
Am 15. April 2012 12:22 schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: I'm not sure why you would attempt such a query with nothing but OSM data. There are multiple websites that specialize in this type of thing and are far better at it than OSM will ever be because they have direct interaction with hotels to handle the volatility in prices, room availability and other considerations that are entirely outside of the scope of OSM. OSM is not a travel site and I would never use it as such. Absolutely correct. We need to be extremely careful not to put volatile info into the OSM database. We would end up with a heap of useless data. We simply do not have the means for maintaining that type of data. I am not really convinced. Entering detailed price information is out of the scope of the main OSM database, I agree. On the other hand OSM is full of volatile information (e.g. people adding road constructions which will be finished in short terms. I also remember a thread on talk-de the other day, where someone complained that another mapper had inserted a road as usable 2 days before it was actually opened). The point is: if there is someone to maintain the data it could be inserted, if instead there is high probability that this data will be left untouched and unused, then don't enter it. Rough pricing information (e.g. price classes like cheap, middle range, expensive, ultra luxurious) will not be outdated any soon. Of course prices get adjusted to inflation, hotels have special offers and the like, but the rough price-range is in the very most of the cases quite stable. Toby mentioned a series of examples for hotel search sites ( hotels.com, orbitz.com, kayak.com, priceline.com, travelocity.com ) but none of them offer their database for download so it's not really an alternative to open data. Basically we would have to get the hotel operators themselves to enter their information into OSM (or into a parallel system that is somehow linked to), and there probably won't be the problem of keeping the data up to date. Anyway, my post up there was to advocate the insertion of the total number of rooms for a hotel, not the prices. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] POI for Hotel
On 15 April 2012 11:33, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: That's always useful, but it doesn't solve the issue of getting the data for a query like: give me all the hotels cheaper than 66 EUR for a double room with bathroom in this bounding box. I'm not sure why you would attempt such a query with nothing but OSM data. There are multiple websites that specialize in this type of thing and are far better at it than OSM will ever be because they have direct interaction with hotels to handle the volatility in prices, room availability and other considerations that are entirely outside of the scope of OSM. hotels.com, orbitz.com, kayak.com, priceline.com, travelocity.com, etc, etc There could certainly be interaction between these sites and OSM. But OSM is not a travel site and I would never use it as such. Somebody should start an OpenServicesDatabase-project, that would host information about hotels, restaurants, cafes, museums and parks with detailed description of amenities provided along with user reviews. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Am 15. April 2012 10:10 schrieb Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? There is already an extension to the barrier class which allows to mark the presence of a guard. page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier:personnel from this approved proposal: Proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Am 15. April 2012 15:15 schrieb Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com: I prefer tagging the addr:housenumber on building outline, landuse, parcel, etc, too. That's clearly the right place for it. what is right and what is wrong depends on the circumstances. I also prefer tagging addr:housenumbers to where they apply, but in Italy this is (as I was recently told on talk-it) actually the gate, not the house or the parcel. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On the other hand, private says Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. But the owner is the homeowners association, and the individual residents can allow people in. And so could the security company. But the HOA and security firm are acting on behalf of, and with the authority of, the owner. So effectively, exactly what private is. How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? Mark the callbox for nonresidents. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
On 4/15/2012 6:30 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. That's only a solution if the gates actually have names. I've never seen such a name. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/15/2012 6:30 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. That's only a solution if the gates actually have names. I've never seen such a name. I have seen gates that had number signs (1, 2, 3, etc., not a street address). This number would logically go into the name tag. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Am 15.04.2012 23:51, schrieb John F. Eldredge: I have seen gates that had number signs (1, 2, 3, etc., not a street address). This number would logically go into the name tag. If these numbers are, what I expect them to be, then it's not a name, but a reference, and should go into the ref-Tag (which is used as a rendering fallback in mapnik, AFAIK, so it should be fine, too. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Am 15.04.2012 23:51, schrieb John F. Eldredge: I have seen gates that had number signs (1, 2, 3, etc., not a street address). This number would logically go into the name tag. If these numbers are, what I expect them to be, then it's not a name, but a reference, and should go into the ref-Tag (which is used as a rendering fallback in mapnik, AFAIK, so it should be fine, too. regards Peter No, I mean that I saw signs on the physical gates, labeling them as gate 1, gate 2, etc. Admittedly, this is more common for gates into industrial facilities. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-15 13:55, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/15/2012 6:30 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. That's only a solution if the gates actually have names. I've never seen such a name. You were asking how to mark a residents only entrance and I suggested one. If you want to be a purist about it, find out what other tags Mapnik might render on a gate and, if one of them is more suitable to put a description in, use it. If not, suggest Mapnik render description=* and use it. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
On 4/15/2012 10:39 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-15 13:55, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/15/2012 6:30 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. That's only a solution if the gates actually have names. I've never seen such a name. You were asking how to mark a residents only entrance and I suggested one. If you want to be a purist about it, find out what other tags Mapnik might render on a gate and, if one of them is more suitable to put a description in, use it. If not, suggest Mapnik render description=* and use it. That's not a solution. Mapnik already renders the type of access in text if you use MapQuest's rendering rules. Routers should be able to point you to the proper gate. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
