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 (instea

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

[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 but

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 conditio

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_wa

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. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

2014-04-14 Thread Janko Mihelić
2014-04-14 12:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 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 "certified"

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

2014-04-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2014-04-02 22:18 GMT+02:00 Rudolf Martin : > 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 a little