Alessandro: good work!
Andy T.: site relations are used for onshore wind farms as the 'farm' is
the collection of turbines and not the areas in-between which are still
used for farming, etc. It _might_ apply to a solar farm where fields of
panels are not contiguous, but generally we have used a
>> On 03/12/2019 18:59, Alessandro Sarretta wrote:
>> Should we maybe rephrase the sentence "Parking spaces *always have to*
>> be grouped together in a site relation tagged with type=site +
>> site=parking." in something like "Parking spaces *can* be grouped
>> together in a site relation
Thank you Markus for this summary.
I think that the issue of having a good way to describe marked lanes on
the road dedicated for people to walk is still there. In my opinion it
needs a more extensive discussion and some tagging and graphic examples
to show simple and complex application.
The proposal looks good as a way to tag that a notary is at another feature
such as a law office.
You might also mention that office=notary can be used for a place that is
only a notary.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dnotary
-Joseph Eisenberg
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:27 PM
sent from a phone
> On 3. Dec 2019, at 21:27, Sebastian Martin Dicke
> wrote:
>
> I often found offices of lawyers, which are notaries, too, and office
> sharings of lawyers and notaries. To tag this appropriate, I wrote a
> proposal:
>
>
>
Thank to everybody, the text has been changed (by Mateusz Konieczny)
accordingly:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space=1928515=1890083
Ale
On 03/12/19 23:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 3. Dec 2019, at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg
sent from a phone
> On 3. Dec 2019, at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> I doubt it is useful to use a type=site relation with parking_space features
> at all. But your proposed rewording would be an improvement.
I mostly agree, although one could construct situations where you might want
On 04/12/19 05:59, Alessandro Sarretta wrote:
Dear tagging list,
Should we maybe rephrase the sentence "Parking spaces *always have to*
be grouped together in a site relation tagged with type=site +
site=parking." in something like "Parking spaces *can* be grouped
together in a site
Dear all,
The voting on the proposal for a new key pedestrian_lane=* for lanes
designated for pedestrians is over. 8 people voted for the proposal, 5
against it and 1 person abstained. This is an approval by 62%, which
is below the required 75% majority. Therefore the proposal has been
rejected.
Hi,
I often found offices of lawyers, which are notaries, too, and office
sharings of lawyers and notaries. To tag this appropriate, I wrote a
proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/notary
Definition: Notary services offered by a lawyers office
Regards
Sebastian
On 03/12/2019 18:59, Alessandro Sarretta wrote:
Should we maybe rephrase the sentence "Parking spaces *always have to*
be grouped together in a site relation tagged with type=site +
site=parking." in something like "Parking spaces *can* be grouped
together in a site relation tagged with
I doubt it is useful to use a type=site relation with parking_space
features at all. But your proposed rewording would be an improvement.
Joseph
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:00 AM Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear tagging list,
>
> looking on how to use the tag
Dear tagging list,
looking on how to use the tag amenity=parking_space
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space) I've
always found the requirement that "parking spaces always have to be
grouped together in a site relation tagged with type=site +
site=parking" too
13 matches
Mail list logo
