Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 10:36 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM, {withheld} wrote:
> > Please note the last line of that article: "Both the town and Phil Down
> > will revert to their original names in a month."
> >
> > Why bother?
>
> Because it's fun.
The government making changes based on facebook polls, sounds scary not
fun.
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM, {withheld}
> wrote:
>> Please note the last line of that article: "Both the town and Phil Down
>> will revert to their original names in a month."
>>
>> Why bother?
>
> Because it's fun.
>
> Steve
>
that's why the subject line says "temp name change"
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM, {withheld} wrote:
> Please note the last line of that article: "Both the town and Phil Down
> will revert to their original names in a month."
>
> Why bother?
Because it's fun.
Steve
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On 18/02/11 20:00, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142067.htm > anyone fixing this on the map? > Please note the last line of that article: "Both the town and Phil Down will revert to their original names in a month." Why bother? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Elizabeth Dodd 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 it on [tagging]. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100 Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith > 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 it's foot=no, motorcar=no... > > Steve > > a complete subtag like caravan=no will cause misunderstandings with those highway tags which mark a cycleway as part of the way sample highway=secondary cycleway=lane caravan=no will the caravan=no belong on the cycleway or will it belong on the main way? however highway=secondary cycleway=lane access:highway:caravan=maybe would be clear. This discussion just informs us that the access tagging system has faults. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 18 February 2011 19:28, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith 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 > you discuss it on the taglist if you feel strongly. > > Steve > As I said, I have regrets about 4wd_only=* so why would I think any other access restriction shouldn't be subtagged as many other access:*=* tags have been added as restrictions etc. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142067.htm > anyone fixing this on the map? http://osm.org/go/uHNkkz1O-- Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith 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 you discuss it on the taglist if you feel strongly. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On 18 February 2011 19:00, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142067.htm > anyone fixing this on the map? Was/is it even mapped to begin with? Grantham in Qld was mapped until it got washed away... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100 Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith > 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 it's foot=no, motorcar=no... > > Steve > > Inconsistent tagging is what you have just described compare source:name= source:ele= source= and access= yes / no / muddle foot=no car=yes caravan:max_camels=10 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 18 February 2011 18:56, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith 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 it's foot=no, motorcar=no... > > Steve > I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] temp name change
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142067.htm anyone fixing this on the map? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith 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 it's foot=no, motorcar=no... Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On 18 February 2011 18:04, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote: >> >> I agree with the access suggestion, eg >> access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable > > You mean caravan=*, right? This is already listed at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access > Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=* ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote: > > I agree with the access suggestion, eg > access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable You mean caravan=*, right? This is already listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access If you use caravan=unsuitable, please document this at the top of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access in the Values section. I would say "access=unsuitable: The way is signposted as being unsuitable for a specific mode of travel". If you use caravan=unsuitable, I would also strongly recommend adding source:caravan="signposted", or source:caravan="sign: unsuitable for caravans". ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
