On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-03-16 23:11 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
I'd like to clarify what I said before that landuse=civic_admin would be
useful. It would be useful for tagging the only the compounds where
On 10.03.2014 12:08, Andrew Shadura wrote:
Hello,
2014-03-10 12:01 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com:
Just a quick reminder, the term borough has several meanings and could
easily be misused. In Alaska, where I'm from, boroughs are large
administrative areas — very similar to
It might be good to see if any of these ideas are in use, despite lack of
documentation. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landuse
A couple potentially useful tags I noticed scanning through the list of
landuse=* values were
1) landuse=religious has 1100 uses
2) landuse=school and
My opinion is, as I've stated before, that having the boundaries of
the municipal area in OSM makes sense, but having it in each and every
object absolutely does not.
This would eliminate the tagging debate, make OSM cleaner, make the
objects more flexible and easier to manage in the future. It's
Dne 18.3.2014 16:48, fly napsal(a):
addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.
Is it? In what way exactly?
Just to be sure, we're on the same page, please take a look at the
explanation of terms I've send to imports mailing list.
Best regards,
Petr Morávek aka Xificurk
2014-03-18 17:52 GMT+01:00 Petr Morávek [Xificurk] p...@pada.cz:
addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.
Is it? In what way exactly?
addr:place should be used instead of addr:street when the address has no
street-name in it but uses the name of the place instead.
Dne 18.3.2014 19:49, Martin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
2014-03-18 17:52 GMT+01:00 Petr Morávek [Xificurk] p...@pada.cz
mailto:p...@pada.cz:
addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.
Is it? In what way exactly?
addr:place should be used instead of
All talk and no action :)
Remontees, do you want to make a nice proposal page ?
Yves
On 01/23/2014 10:51 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:35 PM, yvecai wrote:
I've checked the 8 piste:type=ski_jump mapped and a part one that is
obscured by cloud, the others are what they are: the
Yes Dave (Swarthout), I share your views here. I'd rather we looked at a
rating that reflected how well maintained and usable the road is likely
to be. That is what most road users want to know. Should I use this
road or not ?
tracktype= does claim to use that approach and that why its so
