Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

2014-04-14 Thread Dave Swarthout
Yes, but I don't see a voting link - where do I vote? On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Rudolf Martin rudolf.mar...@gmx.dewrote: Ready to vote? Other than former discussions about drinking water there are not many comments to this proposal. Should I start a voting or cancel the proposal

Re: [Tagging] direction=forward/backward on nodes ?

2014-04-14 Thread Peter Wendorff
Hi, Am 13.04.2014 21:35, schrieb Steve Doerr: I'm surprised that so many people are jumping to this conclusion. Let's remember that a way is just a series of nodes in a particular order. So a node is not necessarily an isolated object. Agree In many cases, it exists solely as part of a way.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

2014-04-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2014-04-02 22:18 GMT+02:00 Rudolf Martin rudolf.mar...@gmx.de: We can transfer drinkable= to drinking_water=. The future tagging- scheme will have only one tag to indicate the existence and quality of drinking water. In the future the tag drinkable= can be deprecated. sorry, if I come up

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

2014-04-14 Thread Janko Mihelić
2014-04-14 12:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: sorry, if I come up a little late with this, and maybe it was already mentioned by someone, actually, drinking_water and drinkable are not exactly the same. If something is drinking_water I'd expect it to be monitored and

Re: [Tagging] direction=forward/backward on nodes ?

2014-04-14 Thread fly
Am 14.04.2014 08:28, schrieb Peter Wendorff: Hi, Am 13.04.2014 21:35, schrieb Steve Doerr: I'm surprised that so many people are jumping to this conclusion. Let's remember that a way is just a series of nodes in a particular order. So a node is not necessarily an isolated object. Agree

Re: [Tagging] direction=forward/backward on nodes ?

2014-04-14 Thread John Packer
To make it less ambiguous and easier I would deprecate forward/backward completely for nodes and advice to use cardinal coordinates for all nodes. I think that would be ok for traffic_sign:direction=*, but not for traffic_signals:direction=* or direction=* when used with highway=stop/give_way,

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

2014-04-14 Thread fly
Am 13.04.2014 22:36, schrieb Mike N: On 4/13/2014 4:21 PM, Pieren wrote: It's just a long and onerous discussion to find dubious arguments against this tag on ways. It's really an argument against needless clutter in the Wiki. Why not add noexit to a relation to show some condition? To

[Tagging] noexit=yes : the outcome

2014-04-14 Thread André Pirard
Hi, Side note: Please note that I just found two versions of the "Use the noexit=yes tag..." text. One ahead that says that it must be used only on nodes and the former one inside that says that it can be used on ways too.  I left the newcomer where it was: ahead

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes : the outcome

2014-04-14 Thread fly
Am 14.04.2014 14:07, schrieb André Pirard: Hi, Side note: Please note that I just found two versions of the Use the noexit=yes tag... text. One ahead that says that it must be used only on nodes and the former one inside that says that it can be used on ways too. I left the newcomer where

Re: [Tagging] direction=forward/backward on nodes ?

2014-04-14 Thread Tod Fitch
On Apr 13, 2014, at 11:28 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Agree partly. It's not meaningless, but it get's ambiguous very often. Take traffic signals as one example where the direction might be used: Besides an intersection someone could add the traffic lights on the four individual ways (instead