Features such as parks may cover a large area, and if the park is
drawn as a polygon, routing software will likely choose the centroid.
The nearest point on public roads to the centroid may however not be
the actual entrance to the park. For example, go to
http://www.yournavigation.org/ and get
For buildings there is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dentrance
I suppose you could invent park=entrance, but perhaps there is reason
for a general entrance=yes tag to use on the nodes on the way which
are entances to that area.
Just a thought.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:41 PM,
Am 18.11.2010 10:41, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
Features such as parks may cover a large area, and if the park is
drawn as a polygon, routing software will likely choose the centroid.
The nearest point on public roads to the centroid may however not be
the actual entrance to the park. For
Beside what Andrew and André mentioned in their replies feel free to add
the ways across the park in detail.
If there are only a few (or only one) entrance, map the ways and
navigation software could be enabled to route better to the target.
If there is a wall or fence around, map it; tag it as
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
Beside what Andrew and André mentioned in their replies feel free to add the
ways across the park in detail.
If there are only a few (or only one) entrance, map the ways and navigation
software could be enabled to
2010/11/17 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com:
Am 17.11.2010 21:43, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
It is accepting that semantically different things can reside under the
same
key and that this doesn't cause any problems - except for people like you
that seem to think that a systematic
While it's proposed only for buildings, it could be used for other
entrances as well IMHO:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance
But the google picture I would interpret as a gate with access=private.
Barriers on nodes are AFAIK difficult for much routers yet, but at
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
While it's proposed only for buildings, it could be used for other entrances
as well IMHO:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance
But the google picture I would interpret as a gate with
2010/11/18 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de:
If there is a wall or fence around, map it; tag it as barrier=wall|fence|...
and add barrier=entrance, where the entrance is.
yes, but tag barrier=entrance only in the case that there is an
opening/hole and tag barrier=gate if there is a
2010/11/18 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Peter Wendorff
This is where the router directs you:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.727531,-81.497805spn=0.015768,0.041199t=kz=16layer=ccbll=28.728191,-81.498677panoid=XVFVRhSRUHwkpCGnyLyWZAcbp=12,85.2,,0,-1.42
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/11/18 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
If there is no (public) entrance here, tag it as access and a good router
should respect that.
That however doesn't help in a case where a public road cuts
I don't know if it's legal to park here and walk around the gate into
the park, but assume for the sake of argument that it is. How do we
tell the router to instead use the main entrance to the south?
In this case, the way in the photo can be properly tagged as a
service/driveway and /or
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance
That however doesn't help in a case where a public road cuts through
the park. How do we indicate that a specific entrance road is the
correct one to use to enter the park by car if you want to spend time
walking in the park?
2010/11/18 Mike N. nice...@att.net:
Better than than barrier=entrance, I think entrance= is a better tag: for
a park, this would be main or visitor, although some parks have multiple
visitor entrances.
to be sure you might tag both. I agree that barrier=entrance for
holes/openings is
On 11/18/2010 04:32 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
So, you would be using multiple surface tags on the same area?
No, I'd tag the whole beach as landuse=beach, the sandy areas as
surface=sand and the grass parts as surface=grass.
___
Tagging mailing
Hi
I'm using Potlatch 1.
Is there a way to delete a relation that's been added to numerous ways
in one go?
Or do I have to remove them one by one still leave the relation in
existence?
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
2010/11/18 Ralf Kleineisel r...@kleineisel.de:
Did I say anything about single grass blades? On a beach you can have
square kilometers of different surfaces, sand, pebbles, grass which are
well big enough to tag.
I thought about something like this when you wrote about grass in the sand:
From my personal experience, beach grass usually grows in the
somewhat-scattered manner shown in these photos, not as densely as grass
growing on regular soil. That is why I suggested documenting both the sand
(surface tag) and also the vegetation growing on the sand (landcover tag).
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Hi
I'm using Potlatch 1.
Is there a way to delete a relation that's been added to numerous ways in
one go?
Nope, not in Potlatch. It's trivial in JOSM though - load the relation
(ctrl-shift-O) and delete it in the
Hi all,
I wish to tag an island with its name. Except that the name refers to a
group of islands, and each of these islands have their own name.
Here it is, Dokdo off the east coast of South Korea. I'd rather not let
this thread stray into political territory, so let's concern ourselves
with a
Probably use a multipolygon with place=island. For example, if I were
mapping a swamp with a single name but multiple pieces, I'd use a
multipolygon for the whole thing. If a sub-area of that swamp had a
name (like a bay in a lake) it would be in addition to the swamp name.
On Fri, November 19, 2010 16:02, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Probably use a multipolygon with place=island. For example, if I were
mapping a swamp with a single name but multiple pieces, I'd use a
multipolygon for the whole thing. If a sub-area of that swamp had a name
(like a bay in a lake) it
The problem with that is that a multipolygon relation is for a single
entity that may be broken down into several pieces.
A group of islands (or an archipelago) is not a single island broken
down into several land pieces. It is just that: a group of islands.
So we need a different way of tagging
What about place=archipelago (or place=islands) used with either the
multipolygon or the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways_Simple
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with that is that a multipolygon relation
24 matches
Mail list logo
