On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> The negative building levels are correct. The floor numbering attempts
> to be continuous among the connected buildings, and the ones to the
> east were built later without renumbering floors; their levels are
> lettered A-G. E and F connect to
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:01 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On 14 August 2018 at 07:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it
>> would be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll
>> die of nuclear
On 14/08/18 02:09, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote:
All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
access=private and can have valid uses. It's not crazy to have both.
Hi!
In a post about access=permit, Kevin Kevin wrote:
El lun., 13 ago. 2018 18:10, Kevin Kenny
escribió:
> - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an
> answer other than 'no'.
>
On 14 August 2018 at 07:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it
> would be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll
> die of nuclear radiation? There are infinite possibilities why a way or
> area
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 20:32, Szem wrote:
>
> OK?
I would not set a general very restrictive access tag together with a lot of
specific permissions, as it is likely you will thereby accidentally exclude
some means of transport you didn’t think about. Just omit the generic
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 18:09, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way?
maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it would
be nonsense to
I left out the references to the wiki page: [1], which clearly shows a
bridge building, similar in structure to the one I mapped, only much
bigger. It straddles a motorway and houses a huge car park. "My"
bridge-building is smaller, straddles a park and is inhabited
(residential), but the basic
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 22:10, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge) and is
> also residential (building=residential), This is a single-storey building
> containing some flats that connects two multi-storey residential
Hi
I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
with the addresses' name
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 19:40, Jmapb wrote:
>
> If this is something akin to a doctor's office, but staffed by a nurse
> instead of a doctor, I'd suggest healthcare=nurse. It's a parallel structure
> to healthcare=doctor, healthcare=dentist, healthcare=midwife, etc. It's not
The one example that I have, I tagged 'building=industrial bridge=yes'
for the part of the building that's above the ground, and then tagged
'covered=yes' on the road and the stream that pass beneath it.
It seems to render well enough, and it makes sense to me.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge) and
> is also residential (building=residential), This is a single-storey
> building containing some flats that connects two multi-storey residential
> buildings (it's
I mark the part of the way that "underlaps" the building with "building
passage" in Josm, i.e. tunnel=building_passage
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tunnel#tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage)
-- maybe add a maxheight too :-)
Neil
On 13/08/2018 21:10, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> How do I correctly
How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge) and is
also residential (building=residential), This is a single-storey building
containing some flats that connects two multi-storey residential buildings
(it's partially visible in the Mapillary image [1])
You can see my
2018.08.13. 20:32 keltezéssel, Szem írta:
Tags in summary:
- Roads found in Waterworks area:
access=private, bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no
-Roads on the embankments:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes,
access=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes
Hi
I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose
sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/
Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request:
-
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
>
> 'access=no' standing alone (not 'transport_mode=no', not 'access=no
> transport_mode=something') is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way? It does indeed
Tags in summary:
- Roads found in Waterworks area:
access=private, bicycle=permit, foot=permit, horse=no
-Roads on the embankments:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes,
- Roads in wildlife conservation areas:
access= private, motor_vehicle=permit,
If this is something akin to a doctor's office, but staffed by a nurse
instead of a doctor, I'd suggest healthcare=nurse. It's a parallel
structure to healthcare=doctor, healthcare=dentist, healthcare=midwife,
etc. It's not in the wiki, but it is the most popular tag and IMO
self-explanatory.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> > On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
> > access=private and can have valid uses. It's not crazy to have both. It
> > may be rare to have
sent from a phone
> On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
> access=private and can have valid uses. It's not crazy to have both. It
> may be rare to have access=no, but any time
> you see a sign "No
Nurses work in many types social facilities. Especially 'nursing homes'.
I think you're being to blinkered to limit your search to places which
explicitly mention 'nurses'.
DaveF
On 05/08/2018 22:38, marc marc wrote:
I'm interested by the premise/local/office/room where a nurse work.
those
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
I guess where we split is that I tend to tag these odd cases based on
> the use that they currently support, and not what they legally are or
> may have been.
>
The only difference is I'd evaluate it on a case-by-case basis until I'd
24 matches
Mail list logo
