On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote:
So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace
Hi,
as probably most of you are aware of, common access tags such as foot=*,
bicycle=* etc. are every often misunderstood by the people contributing
to OSM. The problem is that people, unless they have read the wiki,
believe that these tags define whether it is _possible_ to walk or cycle
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 02:37 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
We don't have building=drop_forge and building=paint_booth for industrial,
yet those are specialty building types -
I agree those are particular building types (with particular requirements that
lead to
On 28/08/2015 13:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
as path can be sub tagged to be the same as bridleway or cycleway and
excluding pedestrians, this is simply not true
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_
restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 02:08 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
As highway=path could be sub tagged to be the same as highway=footway
It was simply a lazy way of tagging a 'footway' with some sub tags rather
than actually using the existing tags.
as path can be sub
On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 14:43 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 02:37 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
We don't have building=drop_forge and building=paint_booth for
industrial, yet those are specialty building types -
I agree those are
Den 28.08.15 14.41, skrev Andy Townsend:
On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote:
So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:00:15PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 27.08.2015 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
With disused:amenity=pub you may get in trouble. What if it was a pub at one
time, a nightclub at another time and a restaurant at yet
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 01:59 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
Nothing wrong with being generic, highway=residential covers a lot of
different looking roads around the world.
OSM can use existing sub tags to further describe them if required.
the more generic we are, the
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 01:59 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
There are existing tags to describe the number of floors in a building. If
that is the only difference.
it's not
cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_
as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could probably approach cycleway
with smoothness etc., but what about bridleway?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:29:58 -0400
Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way to tag roads as being under construction but which
are not closed to traffic? I was wondering because Eglinton Avenue
Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
isn't misunderstood so easily.
The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at
Is there any way to tag roads as being under construction but which
are not closed to traffic? I was wondering because Eglinton Avenue in
Toronto is under long term construction for the Eglinton LRT
(underground light rail) which will not be finished until at least
2020 and a suitably designed
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:29:58 -0400
Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way to tag roads as being under construction but which
are not closed to traffic? I was wondering because Eglinton Avenue in
Toronto is under long term construction for the Eglinton LRT
(underground
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physical
characteristics somehow?
In the absence of any other evidence you might assume that because I
can legally ride my horse / bicycle / drive my car down
John Willis wrote
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow lt;
ksgeo@
gt; wrote:
An additional highway type trail is no solution to the problem of
missing
decent classification criteria path vs footway and would likely cause
further trouble for many sorts of reasons.
Being able to confuse
On 28/08/2015 17:28, ksg wrote:
Am 28.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_ as a
bridleway and
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:52:17 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200
Anders Fougner anders.foug...@gmail.com wrote:
So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which
isn't
Am 28.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_
restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:44:52 +0200
Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:47:28AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather
explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you
assume will be
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:47:28AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather explicitly tag
everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume will be questioned and
taken from you in a few years ;-) what is there explicitly will
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:07:54 +0100
Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey
physical characteristics somehow?
In the absence of any other evidence you might
On Aug 28, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
true for small shops, less so for huge buildings like supermarkets,
department stores, production halls, storage warehouses, swimming pools,
auditoriums, baseball stadions, high rise hotels, shopping malls,
Javbw
On Aug 28, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
nah, landuse is a quite limited set of values, building types are endless...
Types.
Industrial
Residential
Commercial
Education
Hospital
Station
Civic/government
And a corresponding generic
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
An additional highway type trail is no solution to the problem of missing
decent classification criteria path vs footway and would likely cause
further trouble for many sorts of reasons.
When you have one region say all sidewalks are
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
Ilpo Järvinen wrote
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
For those who would want to have a separate tag for 'trails', it's
exclusive but obviously those who would want to tag everything with
highway=path+subtags will disagree :-).
I see there are
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physical
characteristics somehow?
this is explicitly a synonym for
Ilpo Järvinen wrote
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
For those who would want to have a separate tag for 'trails', it's
exclusive but obviously those who would want to tag everything with
highway=path+subtags will disagree :-).
I see there are three main sides in this, those who would
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 19:05 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not indicating
that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=* would at least
give chance that it will be more easily understood (not that
On Fri Aug 28 23:10:59 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather
explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume
will be questioned
Friday 28 August 2015 19:05:52, Mateusz Konieczny:
For example iD - is it clearly
indicating that it is about legal status? I am also regularly checking
situation in my region and fixing new problem.
In English it's called Access.
How it's called in other languages depends on the translators.
Friday 28 August 2015 18:28:44, ksg:
Some horse whisperer may translate that to English
Done. I'm not a native English speaker nor a native German speaker so please do
check the translation if you have the time.
--
The field from of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the
35 matches
Mail list logo
