[Tagging] Feature Proposal - draft - Traffic Signal Timings

Hi all, I just posted a draft proposal to document the relative timing of traffic lights. The aim is to provide a way for navigation apps to better estimate the delay caused by a given traffic signal. In the most basic example, if there are two lights in a row that are locked in sync, you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

I, for one, prefer to have the platform node/way and its corresponding stop_position in 1 stop_area relation per direction of travel or per platform (in bus stations). I don't mind adding the shelter, waste_basket, bench, ticket_vending_device, announcement_board to such a relation. Then these

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

Le 10. 11. 17 à 17:45, Ilya Zverev a écrit : > Your "why change" argument looks weird with this sentence, by the way. I will rephrase my question. What are the benefits of your proposal ? What is the problem with the current situation and how does your proposal improve it ? the main change

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

marc marc wrote: > with so many modifications, it would have been useful in my opinion to > call for comments a second time before the vote. I even think that a > 15-day vote to make the current mapping of the majority of the big > stations INVALID is a bit short. I posted news about the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

José G Moya Y. wrote: > How do you map this situation: > You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station metro line 1. > You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station line 6. > You can't go with wheelchair from line 6 to line 1 (or vice versa) without > paying > your metro fee

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sorry for asking so late, but why should we deprecate mapping subway stations > with a relation or a way and insist on nodes? There are already a significant > number of stations mapped like this. I would also not write: "The location of > the node is irrelevant."

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

Hi! How do you map this situation: You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station metro line 1. You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station line 6. You can't go with wheelchair from line 6 to line 1 (or vice versa) without paying your metro fee again. To do so, you have to go

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

Hello, Le 10. 11. 17 à 15:30, Ilya Zverev a écrit : > After six weeks of discussion and improvements, I am happy to start the > voting on my proposal about mapping metro stations and lines: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping with so many modifications, it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

2017-11-10 15:38 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > sorry for asking so late, but why should we deprecate mapping subway > stations with a relation or a way and insist on nodes? There are already a > significant number of stations mapped like this. I would also not write: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

sorry for asking so late, but why should we deprecate mapping subway stations with a relation or a way and insist on nodes? There are already a significant number of stations mapped like this. I would also not write: "The location of the node is irrelevant." or "There is nothing wrong with putting

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

Hi everyone, After six weeks of discussion and improvements, I am happy to start the voting on my proposal about mapping metro stations and lines: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping Note that the proposal mostly compiles mapping practices already in use and

Re: [Tagging] [Proposal] Boundary=marker

"The tag historic =* indicates historic significance. It has no implications for the current condition or use of the structure." http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic ___ Tagging mailing list