Am 24/lug/2013 um 07:56 schrieb amrit karmacharya amrit...@gmail.com:
Here, it is commonly called operation theater and even the hospital have
board written operation theater
For osm we agreed on using the British version of words, which is theatre in
this case, even if on a global level
On 24/07/2013 06:56, amrit karmacharya wrote:
Here, it is commonly called operation theater and even the hospital
have board written operation theater. As for operating theater, even i
am hearing it called so for the first time.
I love the diversity of English as a world language!
Anyway,
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Something could be both inquiry and customer. Is there a better way?
FWIW, it'd be enquiry not inquiry in English (rather than in American).
Cheers,
Andy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
2013/7/24 Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com
As described in the proposal, inquiry is partly about practical
locking mechanisms so a better way which factors out those concerns is
access=private
locked={yes|mechanism}[1] (or some other tag)
While I can see your
On 15/07/13 07:52, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Open for voting is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets
Which includes toilets:position and toilets:disposal, to allow tagging
of squat facilities
and pitlatrines.
Capacity tagging needs to be added. This might
2013/7/24 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com
An object is the physical thing. It's unique.
An attribute is the different forms, usage etc... of the object. It can
be multiple.
I don't think we should be so inflexible with the object vs attribute. It
depends on the context.
If you are
On 24 Jul 2013 16:44, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote
I don't think we should be so inflexible with the object vs attribute.
It depends on the context.
If you are a data consumer, and are making a list of all addresses in a
town, then the addr:housenumber + addr:street is your object,
On 24/07/13 14:14, Ronnie Soak wrote:
While I can see your intention here, that is the most counter-intuitive
way to tag this I've ever seen.
You would tag a PUBLIC toilet with access=PRIVATE just because you have
to ask for a key first?
Let's agree that permissive is probably more useful.
On 2013-07-24 16:54, Ronnie Soak wrote :
On 24 Jul 2013 16:44, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com
mailto:jan...@gmail.com wrote
I don't think we should be so inflexible with the object vs
attribute. It depends on the context.
If you are a data consumer, and are making a list of all
Hi André,
I agree with you that this Keepright error message is not useful, but my
solution is different from yours:
I tend to think that KeepRight is wrong here. Something CAN be
natural=water and leisure=whatever in common - and why not?
Your example is perfectly valid, and others are as well.
Am 24/lug/2013 um 20:42 schrieb Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de:
natural=water, leisure=fishing (I think that was your example)
natural=water, leisure=swimming
natural=water|heath|grassland|..., leisure=nature_reserve
natural=water, leisure=wildlife_hide
on a side note some of
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists)
a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote:
This is better because access=private already carries the you must
inquire meaning. As the Key:access page states, access=private means
only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. And
12 matches
Mail list logo
