Hi Martin,
drinking_water:refill:fee=no/yes/0..9
>> I don't think the third tag value "0,9" is easily mappible as one needs
to have access to the menu to get the price data. a mapper should be able
to map without speaking the local language.
Also, the price data might quickly become
On 8/3/20 11:38 pm, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
Hi,
I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like
to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark
The reason being that I
sent from a phone
> On 10. Mar 2020, at 17:37, European Water Project
> wrote:
>
> ==> drinking_water:refill = . So yes, means free and for
> everyone, and fee means there is a charge.
what about
drinking_water:refill:fee=no/yes/0..9
Cheers Martin
On 2020-03-11 Wed 06:03, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 20:54, Phake Nick wrote:
>
>> On 2020-03-10 Tue 19:47, Dave F via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > A platform is a platform, a perfectly flat bit of sidewalk isn't.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> DaveF
>>>
>>
>> In the sense of bus,
Anne-Karoline Distel writes:
> I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like
I'm glad to hear that.
> to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark
> The reason being that
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 20:54, Phake Nick wrote:
> On 2020-03-10 Tue 19:47, Dave F via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> > A platform is a platform, a perfectly flat bit of sidewalk isn't.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>
> In the sense of bus, sidewalk could be a platform because they are raised
> from the
Richard Z. wrote
> Is the route "defined"?
I would say "yes" for urban buses in the three cities nearest to me in Spain
(Malaga, Seville, Granada). In all three cities the routes (not just stops)
are quite prominently displayed on the relevant websites - see a random
example here:
On 2020-03-10 Tue 19:47, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
> On 09/03/2020 21:00, Alan Mackie wrote:
> >
> > So it's better to label them all as platforms? I can't see any raised
> area
> > in a typical bus stop:...
> >
> >
> > Why would we tag it as if it looks like this?...
>
> This is just one
On 2020-03-11 Wed 03:20，Richard wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:07:02PM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to
> be
> > re-routed to display or use them. How can you be sure the re-created
> route
> > is the one that is
Almost all PT routes over here are fixed, yes. It's not the driver's
decision where to drive. Of course, blocking events may force the driver to
go around, after reporting to/consulting with the operator.
I'm not so sure it's a good idea to replace fixed and published routes with
computed routes.
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:07:08AM +, John Doe wrote:
>
> Stereo and I have been working on a schema that makes it easier to create and
> maintain public transport route relations. We would like to invite feedback,
> questions, and suggestions, so it can mature and hopefully gain widespread
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 19:20, Richard wrote:
>
> Is the route "defined"?
Yes.
I would think the operator only defines stops and schedules
Timetables rarely show all of the stops on an urban route. You have to
figure
out the times for stops not listed on the timetable by interpolation. I
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 11:29:02AM +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I appreciate the proposal authors for helping to simplify mapping bus
> routes.
>
> I agree that in many cases it would be correct to only include the bus
> stops or train platforms in the relation, especial for longer-distance
>
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:07:02PM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote:
> I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to be
> re-routed to display or use them. How can you be sure the re-created route
> is the one that is defined by the operator? Keeping as an example the city
>
Hi Paul,
Good points !
What do you think about modifying the current tag which just was approved
to have three values?
==> drinking_water:refill = . So yes, means free and for
everyone, and fee means there is a charge.
I apologize for not having foreseen this tag usage case during the
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:13, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your alternative proposal for drinking_water:fee=yes for establishments
> which charge for water bottle refill seems a good one.
>
Seems a bad one to me. There are establishments which charge for
Hi Joseph,
I checked and there are currently 6 nodes and 1 way with
drinking_water:fee=yes ... which is not necessarily a problem.
What would you think about "drinking_water:refill:fee=yes" as a standalone
tag with its own key page ? I had not foreseen the value of a refill
network which
Hi Joseph,
Yes, your understanding was absolutely correct. The current tag pair was
developed for the purpose of mapping free refill points.
Your alternative proposal for drinking_water:fee=yes for establishments
which charge for water bottle refill seems a good one.
How does one check to make
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 07:55, John Doe wrote:
>
> >
> > Given that iD still seems to scramble sorted routes in some
> circumstances, one should not assume that editors will correctly handle any
> changes we make. I might be being unfair to iD here, I didn't check the
> route was still sorted
My understanding was that the new tag "drinking_water:refill=yes" was
going to imply that you can get water for free.
"An establishment participates in a water refill network and will fill
up for free anyone's (paying customer or not) reusable bottle." - wiki
page
On 09/03/2020 22:26, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
Separate relations per each route variant
If you mean bidirectional, they've been mapped since the inception of
route relations.
- verifying that the highway ways are continuous in the relation.
Which PTv2 tags allows that?
DaveF
On 09/03/2020 21:00, Alan Mackie wrote:
So it's better to label them all as platforms? I can't see any raised area
in a typical bus stop:...
Why would we tag it as if it looks like this?...
This is just one example of poor concepts implemented in PTv2. We should
be mapping *physical*, not
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 07:55, John Doe wrote:
> > A new housing estate with two connections to the existing road system
> could cause the bus to be re-routed.
>
> Sounds a little odd - would a router really route a bus on a
> highway=residential or highway=service?
>
I should hope so, many bus
Hi Jake,
i strongly prefer paying 75 centimes for a ecologically sustainable water
bottle refill than being forced to buy a PET bottle filled with water
because there is no alternative.
Whether they survive or not is for the market to decide ... the end result
is less single-use plastic...
Is it worth adding drinking_water:refill:carbonated=yes/no,
drinking_water:refill:chilled=yes/no and drinking_water:refill:alkaline=yes/no,
etc (or drinking_water:refill:types=carbonated/chilled/alkaline). Then fee can
be based on which types of water is charged for?
Personally I can’t see
Dear All,
I have been in contact with Stephanie Dick from Zero Bouteilles Plastique
(copied), based in Arles, France regarding tagging establishments in
OpenStreetMap offering water bottle refill for a small fee. Stephanie is
also involved in Zero Waste France.
The rationale for including
>
> Given that iD still seems to scramble sorted routes in some circumstances,
> one should not assume that editors will correctly handle any changes we make.
> I might be being unfair to iD here, I didn't check the route was still sorted
> before I added a spur, so maybe somebody else doing
27 matches
Mail list logo
