On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:56, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/11 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com:
For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a
private operator who's main business is the swimming pool) usually charge
an entry fee
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for
missing information is: missing information.
Come on, Martin. We are both from enough time on this project to know
that original parking proposal
access=private is a modifying tag - if it is used in conjuction with an
amenity=parking area then it means that the parking is private (and nothing
else). I guess you could use something more specific like parking=private,
but there are 1000s of uses of access=private in this context, so it's
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
On the one hand I wouldn't bother tagging them, but for the ones that you
did tag, I think you should go back and tag them private. The tennis courts
too.
Agreed --- I'll do that (although fairly gradually).
Every time I see solar
On 1/12/2012 5:35 AM, John Sturdy wrote:
I just hope such data doesn't get used for directed marketing; but if
it does, the marketing industry is probably going to come up with the
data anyway before long (I don't think it would be difficult for a
swimming pool accessories company to get
2012/1/12 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for
missing information is: missing information.
Come on, Martin. We are both from enough time on this project
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Depending on where you live, the government may already have such data
available:
http://www.ocpafl.org/searches/ParcelSearch.aspx?pid=282316389901790
PL3 - Large Elaborate Pool
Hmmm... my first thought was that's
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
But again: that's not a
good reason to encourage mappers to omit information they can easily
provide.
Sure. But I fear about this trend asking more and more attributes in
editors like P2 and JOSM. You and me
Hi,
On 01/12/12 13:26, Pieren wrote:
Sure. But I fear about this trend asking more and more attributes in
editors like P2 and JOSM. You and me know that all is optionnal but in
the other way, editors are suggesting the opposite. And more you ask
to newcomers and less your newcomers will
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings on
surface (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings,
so also underground and multistorey)
The surface default was part of the proposal that introduced the
surface/underground/multi-storey
2012/1/12 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings on
surface (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings,
so also underground and multistorey)
The surface default was part of the proposal that
On 12/01/2012, at 19:10, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:56, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com
wrote:
2012/1/11 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com:
For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a
private operator who's
2012/1/12 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com:
For my take on permissive, the best example I can think of is rural
properties where you need to literally drive through private farms to get to
your destination (which is usually another farm).
those usually aren't permissive (at least in the
On 13/01/2012, at 11:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/1/12 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com:
For my take on permissive, the best example I can think of is rural
properties where you need to literally drive through private farms
to get to your destination (which is usually another
2012/1/13 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com:
Okay that explains it very well. I have a friend with a farm who explained a
little to me and the obligation makes perfect sense. But would you tag such
ways as private or just leave them as default access?
this depends on the situation. It might
On 1/12/2012 9:01 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
Farms aside, I struggle to think of examples of permissive ways.
The only thing I can think of is something like a pedestrian shortcut
across a golf course, or a pedestrian way through an arcade or shopping
centre.
Think of a large development (e.g. a
16 matches
Mail list logo
